Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRITS.

For Borough of Wakefield, in the room of Doctor George Brown Hillman, M.B.E., deceased.

For Borough of Richmond, in the room of Major-General the hon. Sir Newton Moore, K.C.M.G. (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position with regard to flag discrimination by the Portuguese Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Ambassador made further representations to the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs on the 29th March, on the latter's return from Geneva. Commander Branco's reply is awaited.

COUPON TRADING SYSTEM.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee of inquiry into the coupon system of trading in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): If agreement to refer this matter to a Select Committee can be reached by hon. Members interested, the Government would be ready to move for the appointment of such a committee.

FRANCE (QUOTA SYSTEM).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the quota system introduced into France affects the British import of textile machinery; and what representations, if any, the British Government is making on the subject to the French Government?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): So far as I am aware the quota system has not yet been applied to textile machinery. On the general question of representations, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend yesterday to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies).

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all countries are now making desperate efforts to keep out imports and to decrease exports, and that this fiddling with tariffs is no remedy?

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. LEWIS: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what recommendations, if any, he has as yet received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), on the 15th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. LEWIS: Are we to understand from that reply that, when these recommendations are made, they are not to be published until decisions are come to upon them, and does that mean that, if the Government decide not to take action on a given recommendation, it will never be published?

Major ELLIOT: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Are we to understand that no recommendations have been made since the 15th March?

Major ELLIOT: My hon. and gallant Friend must understand nothing more than the answer which I have given.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it to be understood that the Treasury have not heard from this Committee since the 15th March?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the question put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and to the reply. The matter was discussed very fully then and on a previous occasion.

ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAY COMPANY.

Lord SCONE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of lie negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Argentine Republic on the subject of the Anglo-Argentine Tramway Company?

Mr. EDEN: As my right hon. Friend stated on the 21st March last, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen), proposals are under consideration for forming a traffic combine, and I understand that these proposals are now taking definite shape. As my right hon. Friend then stated, His Majesty's Government would view with great concern any consequent postponement of the immediate relief which is indispensable the company is to continue its present efficient service under the terms of its concession, and the views of His Majesty's Government on the question have again been brought to the notice of the Argentine Government. I can assure my Noble Friend that His Majesty's Government will continue to watch this matter with anxious concern and will lose no opportunity of assisting this important company.

Lord SCONE: Can my hon. Friend give any indication as to when it is likely that he will be able to make a further statement on this subject?

Mr. EDEN: No, I cannot. As I have told my Noble Friend, we have made these representations, but I cannot say when we shall receive the final reply.

MANCHURIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government
has yet received any communication from the new Government of Manchuria; whether it intends to recognise this Government; and when the League of Nation's Commission of Inquiry will leave Shanghai for Manchuria?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend has received a communication purporting to be from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the new Government in Manchuria, requesting the opening of formal diplomatic relations. No answer has been returned to this communication. I am not, therefore, in a position to add anything to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 14th March last. The League Commission of inquiry informed the Secretary-General of the League on the 26th March that they proposed to leave Shanghai that day for Nanking, where they would stay for four days, and that they would reach Peking at the end of this week. They expect to arrive in Manchuria at the beginning of the third week in April.

Captain MACDONALD: Can my hon. Friend say why there is this delay in replying to this request?

Mr. EDEN: There has not been a delay. No answer has been returned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

VISIT (SouTHEND-0N-SEA).

Mr. McENTEE: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will include Southend-on-Sea among the towns to be visited by units of the Home Fleet this summer; whether any charge is made for visiting the ships at the various seaside resorts; and, if so, whether the receipts are devoted to naval charities?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The programme of visits by His Majesty's Ships of the Home Fleet during the forthcoming summer cruise does not include a visit to Southend-on-Sea. Such programmes are arranged with due regard to the invitations received from the local authorities concerned before the 1st January in each year. No invitation from Southend-on-Sea for a visit during the forthcoming summer has been received. No charge is made for visiting His Majesty's Ships at any of the seaside resorts.

Mr. McENTEE: If such an invitation is received before next January, will the Admiralty be able to accept it?

Captain WALLACE: It will certainly be considered, but these visits are very popular, and we have a great many applications.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend take care that the town of Campbeltown, in Kintyre, will not be omitted this year, as it is a seafaring town, where there are a great many fishermen, who are very interested in the Fleet, and it would do a great deal to help recruiting for the Navy?

Captain WALLACE: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will put that question down.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that people living at Southend-on-Sea can take the ferry boat to Sheerness at any time and see all the ships that they want to see?

SAVINGS BANK.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the profit made by the Naval Savings Bank in the past 12 months; what is the rate of interest paid; and whether the depositors have any voice in the special grants made from the profits for the improvement of recreational facilities and in aid of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust?

Captain WALLACE: The profits for the financial year ended 31st March, 1931, the latest date to which figures are available, Amounted to £13,292. Interest on Naval Savings Bank deposits is paid at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 6.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give the House any information regarding the experiment of the electromatic signals erected at Cornhill; whether any accidents have occurred; and, if so, the number and nature of such?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The signals referred to were
brought into operation on the 15th March and are working satisfactorily. Up to the 4th April there had been no accidents involving injury to persons, but there were three cases of collision between vehicles at the junction.

Mr. PARKINSON: 7.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the automatic traffic signals erected at London Road, Norbury, Surrey, are permanent or in the nature of an experiment; whether pedestrians are taking advantage of this device; and whether any accidents have occurred at this point since they have been installed?

Mr. PYBUS: The signals in London Road, Norbury, which are operated by pedestrians themselves, are an experiment. They are being used to an increasing extent by pedestrians, particularly school children. Two accidents involving slight damage to vehicles have occurred since the signals were brought into use on 17th February last.

MOTORING ACCIDENTS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 9.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has any information to give to the House as to the cost to the hospitals of the country during 1931 of treating motor accident cases; and what proportion of such cost has been recovered by them under the Road Traffic Act?

Mr PYBUS: I regret that I am not in possession of the information asked for.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will the Minister make inquiries, because those of us who are interested in hospitals know that the receipts are infinitesimal as compared with the cost to the hospitals, and we fully expected a different state of affairs when the Bill was passed in the last Session?

Mr. PYBUS: I am entirely sympathetic with the hon. Gentleman, but, as he will appreciate, the information is very difficult to procure. However, I will try again.

Sir J. NALL: Could not my hon. Friend ask the police authorities to send the accident cases to the Poor Law hospitals, which are in a position to make charges, rather than impose on the voluntary hospitals?

ROYAL PARKS (CHAIRS).

Mr. HICKS: 10.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the reason for the reduction in receipts for licences for letting chairs in the Royal Parks and pleasure grounds from £9,600 in 1931 to £8,000 in 1932?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The reduction is due to the fact that, as the gross takings in recent years have tended to decrease, the net sum payable by the licensee under the terms of his agreement is not expected to exceed £8,000 for 1932.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the falling off is that at some period after the declaration of war twopence was charged instead of a penny, and the result is that in these hard times people will not pay twopence for a chair in Royal Parks or any other parks?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 14.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality have finished their deliberations; and when will their final report be published?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (W. Ernest Brown): My right hon. Friend understands that this Committee are now considering their final report, which is expected to be ready for publication towards the end of the summer.

IMPORTED BACON.

Mr. PRICE: 16.
asked the Minister of Health where the imports of bacon from Lithuania and Poland are examined; whether the bacon is imported chemically cured or smoked; and what quantity was rejected as unfit for human food in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1931?

Mr. E. BROWN: Bacon is consigned from Lithuania and Poland to Bermondsey and Hull. It may be examined there and at other ports to which it is transhipped, such as Liverpool and Newcastle. It is brine-cured, in accordance with the Regulations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. My right hon.
Friend regrets that he cannot state separately the total quantity of bacon from these particular countries which has been condemned.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. LEWIS: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, as the law stands at present, if the tenant of a house subject to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts dies, and his widow having succeeded him as tenant subsequently dies also, his son if he has been residing in the house can claim to succeed to the tenancy as protected by the Acts; and if he will promote legislation to prevent the owner of the property being deprived of part of its value fur an indefinite period?

Mr. E. BROWN: As my 113n. Friend is aware, it was decided in July last, in the case of Pain v. Cobb, that the right of tenancy of a deceased statutory tenant does not pass to any person after the death of his widow. If my hon. Friend bases his statement of the law, as set out in the question, on a later decision of the Courts and will inform my right, hon. Friend to what particular decision he is referring, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to communicate with him.

Mr. PARKINSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to say when it may be possible to introduce amending legislation.

Mr. PARKINSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that anything will be done in the present Session?

Mr. BROWN: I have nothing to add at the moment.

Mr. MAXTON: What is the reason for the delay? Does not the hon. Member remember that this was announced in the King's Speech?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is as well aware as I am that this is a difficult and complicated matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member say if it is not a fact that the Cabinet cannot make up its mind on this matter?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is misinformed as usual about the doings of the Cabinet.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Member not aware that in his own constituency they are up in arms against the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BURMA.

Mr. LEWIS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further information to give the House as to the recent disturbances in Burma?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell).

IMPERIAL AIR COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether arrangements will be made for any of the Indian delegates at the Ottawa Conference to have instructions from the Government of India with regard to the extent to which the latter is prepared to co-operate on the question of Empire air communications passing over Indian territory; and, if not, whether he will consider drawing the attention of the Indian Government to the desirability of taking the necessary steps to enable their delegates to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Ottawa Conference in this connection?

Captain HUDSON: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be communicated to the Government of India.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture approximately the proportion of food for human consumption produced in this country and imported from abroad during 1931?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The latest available figures are those contained in the report on the Agricultural Output and Food Sup-
plies of Great Britain published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1929. These estimates were based chiefly on the years 1924–7, and showed that in the case of foodstuffs, including fish, normally produced in Great Britain the value of the home production was 44.9 per cent, of the total. The comparable figure for all foodstuffs was 39.3 per cent. Similar calculations will, it is hoped, be made in connection with the agricultural and industrial censuses for 1930, but the results cannot be available for some considerable time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this publication is likely to be available to Members?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; but it will probably be a couple of years at least.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP ASSISTANTS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. LOGAN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state if any legislative action is to be taken this Session with respect to the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to introduce legislation on this subject this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER DUTY (REVENUE).

Mr. HICKS: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of standard barrels of beer brewed in January, March, and February of 1930, 1931, and 1932, and the amount of revenue represented by the figures for the respective years?

Major ELLIOT: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate a table giving the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The number of standard barrels of beer assessed to duty and the amount of duty assessed in each of the months January, February and March in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 were as follow:

—
Quantity.
Amount of Duty.





Standard Barrels.
£


January,
1930
…
1,508,000
5,630,000



1931
…
1,272,000
4,932,000



1932
…
979,000
5,216,000


February,
1930
…
1,273,000
4,760,000



1931
…
1,119,000
4,335,000



1932
…
907,000
4,837,000


March,
1930
…
1,436,000
5,365,000



1931
…
1,476,000
5,714,000



*1932
…
1,090,000
5,801,000


*NOTE.—The figures for March, 1932, are approximate and subject to correction.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will furnish a White Paper summarising the report of Mr. H. B. Butler, of the International Labour Office, on labour conditions tin Egypt?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The object of this Mission, the expenses of which were paid by the Egyptian Government, was to report to that Government on the best means of organising its Labour Department. I do not know whether the Egyptian Government will publish the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. LOGAN: 13.
asked the Minister of Health how many widows have received pensions since the coming into force of the Act of 1929 up to the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. E. BROWN: Up to the 17th of March, 338,966 pensions were awarded under the 1929 Act to widows in Great Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (AIR OPERATIONS).

Major THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the hostilities now taking place in Iraq?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. In the sum-
mer of last year serious inter-tribal raid-mg brake out in a remote frontier region of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the administrative authority of the Iraqi Government had never been fully established. The principal offender was a certain Kurdish chief, Sheikh Ahmad of Barzan, who had started a religion which he sought to impose on neighbouring tribes by a campaign of pillage and murder. Pacific measures to restrain the Sheikh's depredations having failed, the Iraqi Government were forced to the conclusion that military measures must be taken to restore order and to bring the affected tribes under control. Meanwhile winter had supervened, and owing to severe climatic conditions and the mountainous character of the region, military operations were rendered impossible until the spring.
On the 15th March a strong punitive force of the Iraqi Army moved into the affected area, and are now engaged in establishing civil administration and police control. British and Iraqi Air Force units are co-operating. There have already been a few brushes with the rebels, and British aircraft engaged on reconnaissance duties have come under fire, unfortunately resulting in the death of one British airman on the 3rd April and the wounding of another.

Major THOMAS: May I ask under whose orders units of the Royal Air Force are operating in Iraq?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Under the orders of the Officer commanding the Royal Air Force in Iraq with the approval of the High Commissioner in Iraq.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (OATH AND LAND ANNUITIES).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the subject of communications with the Government of the Irish Free State on the two questions of the Oath and the Land Annuties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I received this morning a communication from Mr. de Valera. It is at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement, say, on Monday in reference to this rather important matter

Mr. THOMAS: I agree that it is important, and I think that I shall be in a position to answer on Monday if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question.

Mr. MAXTON: Cannot the Minister let the House know the contents of the letter now so that we can give it consideration? It cannot be a very extended communication.

Mr. THOMAS: It is not customary to publish documents of this kind without agreement between the two Governments. I promised the House on the last occasion that publication of the documents would be made at the earliest possible moment, and that is certainly our intention now. At the earliest possible moment all documents of both Governments will be published.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the Irish Government want this document to be kept secret?

Mr. THOMAS: There is no more reason to assume that than that our reply shall be kept secret, but the communication came this morning, and the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will agree that before it is published the Government should at least have full time to consider the whole document. That is the only reason.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what business will be taken on Friday?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): In addition to the Second Reading of the Transitional Payments Prolongation (Unemployed. Persons) Bill, which has already been announced, it is proposed to consider the following Orders: Committee stage of a Money Resolution relating to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow; Second Reading of the Chancel Repairs Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; Report and Third Reading of the Grey
Seals Protection Bill [Lords]; and, should there be time, other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: In regard to the business, which is of very secondary importance, would the Leader of the House consider whether it is not now an opportune time for restoring private Members' time?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that we might wait and see what happens. There is a good deal to be done, and the Second Reading of the Bill which is down as the first Order may very well take the whole day.

Orders of the Day — WHEAT BILL.

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
This step is being taken because we discovered during the Committee stage that, according to the Rulings of the Chair, many new Clauses we desired to move were regarded as being outside the scope of the Measure. It appears that the only possible way of bringing those new Clauses forward is to secure the re-committal of the Bill with an Instruction to the Committee to deal with such points as have been omitted. This Bill is intended to provide considerable financial guarantees, which may amount to £6,000,000, and to extend the area under wheat from 1,250,000 acres to 1,800,000 acres. The Government are, therefore, doing something very tangible for wheat growers. That may be the wisest course to pursue, though we beg leave to doubt it, but as the Government have made up their minds to do so much for wheat growers we think they ought to agree to set up a committee to watch the movements of flour and bread prices during the next year or two. Such a procedure would be the only guarantee producers would have that they would not be exploited even beyond the exaction of the £6,000,000. A committee ought to be set up to watch flour and bread prices and the Board of Trade be empowered to take action to safeguard the consumers of bread and flour. We feel, further, that as the farmers are to get £6,000,000 without any safeguards either as regards methods of cultivation or distribution the workers in the industry are entitled to an assurance that they shall have some share of the benefit in their wages. Further, we think there is no real necessity, as the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said in Committee, that the guaranteed price of 45s. a quarter should be increased before guarantees in other forms are demanded.
Another point is that we ought to be doubly safeguarded against the landowners taking advantage of the wheat
subsidy. It may be argued that there is no real reason to fear that they will do so, but I am one of those who think that the tempter is always the bigger criminal, and we ought not to tempt even landowners. If it is the farmer who is really down and out, he is the one person we ought to assist. We want to protect the farmer against increased rents or other impositions by landowners, and we ask that instructions may be given to the committee to take steps to safeguard the nation against any part of this £6,000,000 going into the pockets of the landowners, who are rendering no service to the general community. A fourth reason why we are asking for the recommital of the Bill is that if events should prove that certain farmers are making excessive profits out of it the Government ought to re-examine the whole position. The hon. and gallant Member for the Maldon Division (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) smiles at the suggestion, but if the figures of the Oxford Statistical Department can be relied upon a guarantee of only 4s. a quarter is required at the moment to make wheat growing a paying proposition, whereas under this Bill we are guaranteeing £1 a, quarter. That being so it is not at all unlikely that excessive profits will be obtained in certain parts of the wheat-growing areas. If our fears are not well founded there will be no need for the Government to act.
As the poorest of the poor will be the biggest contributors to this pool of £6,000,000, at least they are entitled to know that they are not to be unduly exploited by people making excessive profits. Finally, I repeat that as the Government are providing a shelter for the farmer and treating him very generously indeed, they ought to be equally generous to the consumer, and we ask that the prices of flour and bread, wages of agricultural employés, rents and excessive profits may all be made the subject of instructions to the Committee.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I confess that I was a little surprised when I saw this Motion on the Paper this morning. I think the House will realise that the Government have taken special care to give to the Opposition in this House every possible facility for the discussion of the Bill. It is true that under a previous Measure
dealing with import duties, in order to secure the necessary rapidity to deal with forestalling, the Guillotine was used, but in this case we have deliberately abstained from using the Guillotine. Further, may I remind the House that on no single occasion during the discussions in the Committee stage was the closure moved. The Government recognise that the Opposition is small in numbers, and it has not been the desire of the Government at any time to deny to them their proper right of opposition. I am one of those who fully recognise the value of criticism; indeed, I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the temper and the tone in which they have received this Bill. On this occasion, I wish to say that this Motion is entirely uncalled for.

Mr. ATTLEE: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Williams) has moved this Motion not because we are complaining that we have not had opportunities to move Amendments, but because we desire to discuss matters which cannot be discussed unless our Motion is adopted.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that this Motion has been moved in order to enforce specific points. One point is the appointment of a flour and bread prices committee. The second point is to make better provision in regard to the wages of persons employed in agriculture. The third is to secure provisions for the regulation of rent of agricultural holdings and the profits of registered growers. May I point out that there is in existence at the present time a Food Council, and that council is, in fact, inquiring into the prices of flour and the cost and profits of baking in London. A Bill was introduced by the Labour Government called the Consumers' Council Bill which never reached the Report stage. Clearly, the machinery exists to-day to inquire into these problems, and in fact that is what is being done. Therefore, the necessity

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[3.28 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grithffis, T. (.Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Batey, Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Duncan. Charles (Derby, Clay cross)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles
Hicks, Ernest George


Cape, Thomas
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hirst, George Henry


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Holdsworth, Herbert

for further inquiries does not really arise. The question of agricultural wages was debated in this House and in Committee, and it is clear that you could not, in justice and fairness to the agricultural labourer, try to deal with that problem in one close section. I suggest that those who are taking an interest in the problem, and who desire to see what we hope will be greater prosperity for the agricultural industry, will see that the labourer gets his fair and proper share. I suggest to those interested in this matter that that can be properly done under the machinery of the wages boards which exist at the present time. It is essential that that should be done through the existing machinery, because only then can the interests of the agricultural labourers as a whole be properly safeguarded. With reference to the question of rent, we have in existence the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923, which gives protection to the tenant against any arbitrary raising of rent. When you are giving protection to the labourer, with a possibility of increasing his remuneration, is it conceivable that you can deny to the owner the right of protection against arbitrary treatment, and the right to have a fair and reasonable return for enhanced prosperity? Another point which has been raised is the suggestion that there is to be undue profit made by certain farmers in certain areas arising out of this legislation. There are numerous safeguards against that possibility in the Bill. There is to be a revision at the end of three years, and there is a limit of 6,000,000 quarters. For the whole of those points which have been raised by the Opposition there is a sufficient check in the Bill, and there is no necessity for the Motion which has been moved and which, as far as the Government are concerned, must be resisted.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 221.

Jenkins, Sir William
McGovern, John
Thorne, William James


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Malialieu, Edward Lancelot
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kirkwood, David
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson, John James
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Leonard, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Pickering, Ernest H.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Price, Gabriel



Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEntee, Valentine L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, Charles


Allen, Lt.-Col. J, Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gledhill, Gilbert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gower, Sir Robert
Munro, Patrick


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bern, Sir Arthur Shirley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
North, Captain Edward T.


Bernays, Robert
Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Connor, Terence James


Blindell, James
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Patrick, Colin M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Pearson, William G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peat, Charles U.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Penny, Sir George


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hanbury, Cecil
Petherick, M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harris, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Browne, Captain A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Purbrick, R.


Burghley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Held, William Allan (Derby)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, John Roland


Castle Stewart, Earl
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rothschild, James A. de


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarke, Frank
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clarry, Reginald George
Knebworth, Viscount
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Clayton Dr. George C.
Knight, Holford
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Colville, John
Law, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A N. Stewart


Conant, R. J. E.
Leckle, J. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cooper, A. Duff
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Scone, Lord


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lees-Jones, John
Selley, Harry R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cranborne, viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Levy, Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd, Gr'n)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Denville, Alfred
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Soper, Richard


Doran, Edward
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Drewe, Cedric
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Duggan, Hubert John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stones, James


Eady, George H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Storey, Samuel


Eden, Robert Anthony
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Strauss, Edward A.


Edge, Sir William
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ednam, viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Tate, Mavis Constance


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Magnay, Thomas
Templeton, William P.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Essenhlgh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fermoy, Lord
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fox, Sir Gilford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)




Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Womersley, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Major George Davies and Lord


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Erskine.

Bill, as amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Service of documents and power to require statutory declarations.)

Any notice or other document required by or under this Act to be served on any person shall, unless he proves that it was not received by him, be deemed to have been duly served on him if it was sent by registered letter addressed to him at his last known place of business, and any such notice requiring any person to furnish any information may require him to make a statutory declaration as to the truth of the information furnished.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is for the purpose of applying generally to the Bill the provisions regarding the service of documents and power to require statutory declarations, which were previously limited, by the terms of Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 to that Clause, which deals with the Wheat Commission's power to obtain information. The insertion of this Clause will involve a consequential Amendment in page 18, line 7, to leave out Subsection (5) of Clause 10, the place of which will be taken by this Clause. It will be necessary for me to serve notices in a variety of circumstances, and it is desirable that the powers should not be limited to any one Section of the Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions for securing to growers of millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor.)

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "year," to insert the words:
during the continuance of this Act.
The object of this Amendment is to limit the period of operation of the Act, and it should be taken in conjunction with a later Amendment to Clause 19 in which we propose that the Act shall not continue in operation beyond the year
1937. We have strongly opposed the principle of a permanent subsidy to agriculture at the expense of the consumers of bread in this country, and, while we recognise that in this House today we are powerless to prevent the Government from carrying out their wishes, we claim that an automatic opportunity should be given to the House and to the country to bring this Measure to an end and reconsider all that it implies before proceeding any further. It should be realised that this is, after all, a proposal to pay an enormous sum of money to a few people for a purpose which does not justify the continued expenditure for all time of the enormous sum of money which is to be collected and spent in connection with this Measure. We propose that this expenditure shall cease automatically five years hence.
The Minister himself has stated that this is in form a trial Bill. I do not think he will say it is intended to be permanent. The Lord President of the Council put the same idea in happier words than I could use in dealing with the question of abnormal importations and the general issue of tariffs and Free Trade. He said there was no possible way of avoiding this change in our fiscal system. Those who did not believe in tariffs must be reconciled to the idea of a trial, and they would all be judged by results. When the tariffs of which he spoke had been in operation for two or three years an opportunity would present itself for an appeal to the country, and tariffs would be judged, not by what was said about them, but by their effect on the economic life of the nation. If the Lord President of the Council holds that view in regard to tariffs, why does not the Minister of Agriculture recognise that he cannot to-day legislate for all time, and that he cannot to-day fix the provisions of this Bill and impose them upon the nation for all time without any possibility of reform or termination?
I think the Minister, too, has his doubts, because, while he has fixed one factor in the scheme for a period of three years, even he will not go beyond that
three years, and he has laid down as a working principle that after the first three years the standard price may be revised and the committee of three is to have regard to the economic conditions in the industry. They are to inquire into the world price of wheat, the cost of production, the amount of deficiency payments, and the general condition of agriculture, and at the end of three years they will be empowered and required to recommend to the Minister that the standard price shall be maintained or varied as they think fit, and the Minister is to accept the recommendation and to make an order for variation, which is to take effect subject to the approval of Parliament. The Minister himself recognises that the Bill as it is cannot be carried on indefinitely without being brought under review and reconsideration, and, if we are wrong when we ask that it shall terminate in five years, there is an equal measure of blame attached to the Minister for his failure to guarantee the 45s. a quarter beyond the period of three years as is laid down in the Bill. He shares the condemnation which would fall upon us from those who say that he should guarantee the price to the farmer without any danger of it being cut off or recalled at any time.
The deficiency payments are likely to amount to a very considerable sum, and I invite the House once again to consider whether we are doing right in allowing the machinery of the Bill to operate to pay to registered growers of wheat a deficiency payment the extent of which no one really knows. There is every likelihood that in the first year the subsidy payment will not be less than 18s. or 19s. a quarter, and it may be raised to a figure of 22s. or 25s. No one knows exactly. There is no limit in the Bill to the amount of deficiency payment for each quarter of wheat and no limit to the aggregate amount to be paid in any given year. The prospects are that the amount will not be much less than 20s. a quarter and the aggregate not much less than £6,000,000 in any given year unless world conditions change very much, and the indications are that, if they do change, they will change in a direction which will give the farmer a claim to a higher payment than he has at present. There is a large surplus of wheat in the world, wheat-producing methods are con-
stantly tending to produce cheaper wheat, and the indications are that the world price for the next few years will be lower than at present. In the meantime, the standard price is to be maintained for three years, and the deficiency payment is very likely to increase.
The right hon. Gentleman defended the claim of the landlord to a share of this subsidy. That is the first time in the discussions on the Bill that that claim has been made. We had never heard a word about the poor landlord. We have heard about the poor farmer who is unable to continue to grow wheat, but the Bill has not been brought forward to enrich the farmer—not even to save him from making losses. The idea bas been to enable him to continue to grow wheat in the national interest, and we are paying a very high price indeed for this desire, legitimate in some circumstances, to grow the quantity of wheat foreshadowed in the Bill. But there is no reason why this House, or the country, or the consumers of bread, should be called upon to pay additional rent to the landlord, and I feel sure that even this House, constituted as it it is, the result of a political accident or something even worse, a House which is not a representative House, will not agree that the poorest people should be called upon to pay an additional price for every slice of bread they have in order that landlords may draw for an indefinite period higher rents than those they have enjoyed so long. I remember the Lord Privy Seal, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, concocting a very smart joke when he described the effect of the additional taxation on tobacco and said the smoker would have one draw for himself and 15 or 16 for the Exchequer. Here is an occasion when for every slice of bread eaten by the poorest people a contribution is to be made, one bite to the farmer and one to the landlord, for every alternative bite enjoyed by the person himself. This is the first time we have heard of the landlords' rights, and I should think that that is sufficient reason for limiting the period.
The Minister referred to the Opposition, and, indeed, confessed that we have not indulged in fractious opposition. Today our opposition is more justified than ever, because now we are told that part of the subsidy is likely, and legitimately, to be taken to enrich the landlords of
this country who have derived enhanced interest and value in the land which they have held so long without making a single contribution towards that enhancement. The best way to check this sort of thing is to impose a time limit upon the operation of the Bill. If to-day we decide that the Act shall operate only for five years, it will be much more difficult for a landlord to impose additional rents upon his tenants. If the landlords and the farmers know that there is always to be a standard price of 45s. a quarter for homegrown millable wheat, and that deficiency payments up to that figure are to be made under the procedure of this Measure, the landlords will very soon make an approach to their tenants, and we shall see a rent ramp very early in operation in the wheat-growing districts of the country. If the landlord knows that the Act is only to remain in operation for five years, it will be very difficult for him to make arrangements to raise his rents, especially if he knows that there may be a possibility that rents will have to be reduced when the five years come to an end.
We are rightly entitled to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the absence of any provisions for helping the agricultural labourer. I will not dwell upon this subject, because I know that it is not in order, but we are entitled to put forward this point in contradistinction to the claims made by the Minister upon the question of rents. We want the Bill to be tried out. We have become resigned to it. The Bill has to be tried out. We believe that it will not effect its full purpose, and that there are many faulty pieces of machinery in this very complicated Measure. It has been said in this House that the Bill is one which nobody understands. I exclude myself from that category, but there are only a few of us who know the Bill. Knowing the Bill as we do, we venture to predict that a good many weaknesses will be found when it operates in its very complicated fashion in the years ahead of us. Five years is not a long time, but it is long enough to give the Measure a fair trial. The present Government will have been dead long before the Measure, with the limitation we propose, comes to an end. The Minister will have passed away to the political haven, the Tir Na Nog, which his forebears yearned to
reach after lives of turbulence and strife. We wish him rest in that final political retirement. We do not wish to bind the House and prevent it from having an opportunity of expressing by full and free volition whether the Measure shall be perpetual in the agricultural industry, and that is why I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to express my feelings upon the Measure, and I trust that the Minister will agree to limit the operation of the Bill, which, in my opinion, is the most despicable piece of legislation that has been introduced into this House in the last 100 years. Here you have a Measure which proposes to help in the reorganisation of agriculture. None of us disagrees with the principle of reorganisation, but the Measure places the cost of reorganisation upon the poorest people in the land. We could have understood the Government coming forward with a policy of agricultural reorganisation if they had made proposals for any financial help towards agriculture being drawn from the Exchequer, to which the rich make a contribution. But here you have a Bill fundamentally based, in giving agriculture financial help, upon taxing the food of the poorest people of the country.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not justified in proceeding with a speech which is more suitable to the Third Reading of the Bill, but which is not in order on this Amendment. The hon. Member is now speaking against the whole Bill and not upon the question of a time limit.

Mr. PRICE: I feel very strongly against the whole Bill, but nevertheless I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will confine myself to the Amendment. It is because of those principles and many others already illustrated by my hon. Friend that I am seconding the Amendment to impose a limit upon the duration of the Act. Surely we are entitled to ask that there shall be some opportunity given to the House to re-examine the position within a few years from now so as to find out what has happened with regard to British agriculture and the growing of wheat during the time that the Measure has been in operation. I
was astonished this afternoon when the Minister said that he agrees that landowners should have part and parcel of the benefits of the operation of the Act, and that under the Measure an increase of rents would be justifiable. In Amendments which we moved previously we suggested that there was a danger, unless there was a safeguard, that landlords would take advantage of the operation of the Measure and increase their rent charges. We were told that there was no need for such a safeguard and that the landlords would not dream of doing anything like that, but the Minister gets up this afternoon and encourages them. He says, "You will be quite justified," and he no doubt expects them to do so. Therefore, we shall not be surprised if our prophecies come true. I hope, in face of all the Bill proposes to do and the despicable way in which it proposes to do it, that, whatever Government may be in power five years from now or less, the House will be given a free opportunity of discussing the merits of the Measure in the light of what it has accomplished.

4.0 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I listened with very great care to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and also to that of the Seconder. The hon. Member who moved it asked that some opportunity should be given for the revision of this Measure, and he asked me specifically whether I was in accord with what the Lord President of the Council had said, with reference to another matter, that there would be opportunities for dealing with tariffs at a later stage. Of course, I am in agreement with what the Lord President said, and I think it is obvious that in the scheme of this Bill there is to be an opportunity at the end of three years to judge of this problem—not prejudge it without knowledge of the circumstances at that time, but to judge of the problem at that time. This industry of agriculture which we are endeavouring to assist is not an industry which can be rapidly developed like some other industries, but it is clear, as we have debated this matter in the Committee stage, that there is provision for the whole problem to be examined by an independent body at the end of three years to judge and report upon the circumstances at that time, and, of course, it is within the
rights of Parliament to make such decision as it chooses on that report. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in skating again around this topic, which, apparently, is causing him and his colleagues some difficulty. He seemed to be quite unwilling to state frankly whether or not this Measure is intended to he permanent. We have had expressions of opinion of all sorts from the Ministers who are in charge of this Bill, and no one can yet find out from an examination of those statements whether it is the intention of the Minister that this Bill should permanently be enforced for the benefit of the farmers of this country. Throughout this Bill we have had the same difficulty in trying to induce the right hon. Gentleman to call a spade a spade. May I suggest to him for his edification a form of words which he might use the next time he wants to speak of a spade? He might call it a useful article which might have been used for the purposes of husbandry, if such an article had been required for use by the person owning the land on which the said husbandry was proposed to be carried out.
That is a typical example of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman tries to give a clear statement of the policy of the Government. We suggest that in this particular instance it is a matter of very vital importance not only for the consumers but for the farmers, because the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a matter of importance for the farmers of this country to know whether his view or the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland is the one which is accepted by the Government. Surely this great National Government can make up its mind whether the farmer is entitled henceforward to lay down his agricultural policy for the period on the basis that this is to be a permanent institution in this country, and not on the basis that it is to be temporary. We say that there is every argument in favour of being quite honest with the farmer, and saying, "This is experimental and temporary. If at the end of the experimental period Parliament decides that it is necessary to continue
this as a permanent system, Parliament shall be left to decide, but we will not delude the farmer into the belief now that we are making it permanent, when really at the back of our mind we have promised the Free Traders of the Cabinet that it shall not necessarily be permanent."
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to delude the poor farmer in that way, not to lead him to go forward on a statement, which may be read to mean one thing or the other, believing that it is to be a permanent institution, when, in reality, it is the intention at the end of three years, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, to have a review which may result in the cancellation of the whole system. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am obliged for that. Then the review which is to take place in three years is to be nothing but a review of price, a review of how much is to be paid. He does contemplate, then, that the system is to be permanent, and the argument which he has just put forward suggesting that there will be a review, and that it is all to be open again to decide whether it is wise or not, is really camouflage. He himself now says that that review is not intended to decide whether this is wise or not. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said so by nodding his head. If he wants to deny it, I will give way at once. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to deny it, and I take it that he confirms it. Therefore, this review is not to decide on the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill is intended to be permanent, subject only to a price revision.
There is all the difference in the world between a Bill which is permanent in its nature, and can only be got rid of by repeal by this House, and a Bill which is bound automatically to come up at the end of a given period for re-enactment if it is required to continue it, because under the one system the House, in effect, rules out control, and under the other system this House can keep under control the question of determining whether this system shall be continued or not after a period of five years. In the circumstance in which the world is at the present moment, I should have thought that even the right hon. Gentle-
man would have found difficulty in forecasting beyond five years what was necessary for agriculture in this country, and I should have thought that he might have given Parliament an opportunity in five years' time to have this necessarily brought before it. It is for those reasons that we do press that this Bill should be made of a temporary and not a permanent character.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I must say that I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture on this Amendment. I know it is difficult for him to accept Amendments on the Report stage, but if he had made a statement of the policy of the Government towards wheat cultivation in the future and with regard to this Bill now before the House, it would have modified, at any rate, a good deal of my opposition to this Bill in the remaining stages. After all, the whole justification of this Bill, as has been said quite rightly, is that it is to be used as a lifebuoy temporarily to help farming through a very difficult time of abnormally low prices But if this Amendment is to be rejected, wheat growers throughout the country will be justified in saying that the Government of the day have given encouragement to the idea that they should go on cultivating wheat indefinitely, and as part of the permanent policy of the country. The Minister said that agriculture is something that is not rapidly developed. I know that farmers have to take a long view. They have to cultivate their land over a period of years, and, as I understand, the whole justification of this Bill is that it is to enable them to tide over the change from one form of cultivation to another, and to weather the period of low prices.
I would remind the Government that they are a National Government, an emergency Government, to deal with an emergency period, and that their legislation, therefore, should be, on the whole, not of a permanent, but of a temporary character. I have supported the National Government more or less. I realise that they represent all that is best in the country, and have come together to tide over period of financial stringency, a financial blizzard throughout the world. The Minister of Agriculture thinks that this is an opportunity to introduce permanent legislation of a reactionary character. I would suggest to him that
five years is a very generous period. Under the Parliament Act this Parliament comes to a termination at the end of five years. Then there is the precedent of the Safeguarding Acts which were deliberately limited to five years, so that the various industries concerned should have time to put their industries in order, to reorganise. I would suggest that five years even for the agricultural industry ought to be a sufficient period to reorganise, either to adopt American methods of mass production, by introducing the system of large farms, up-to-date machinery, to clear away hedges if that is possible, and so forth—I do not suggest that this country is particularly suited for wheat growing—or, alternatively, to transfer to other crops, to milk production, poultry or pig production, or whatever it may be.
It is unfortunate that in the year 1932 the message should go forth that the Government intend this kind of legislation to be permanent, and not come to an end after five years. This Amendment having been moved, it is most unfortunate that the Minister should not lay down his policy, and make it clear, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did, that this is a respite which the Bill will secure for the cereal farming industry and cannot be more than temporary. That is what he said on Second Reading. I am sorry that the Minister has not confirmed the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wish the right hon. Gentleman were here to take the opportunity to announce his attitude to the Amendment before the House.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The reasons which the Mover and Seconder gave for this Amendment were that the agricultural landlord might get a bite out of this Measure, and also that the agricultural landlord has made no contribution to this problem. I know that it is a political party cry, and even on an Amendment like this it cannot be kept out, but if that sort of thing is said too often, people will really begin to think that there is something in it. I despair of converting the hon. Member to the truth, but I want to tell him a few facts. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who often talks on these subjects and on land taxes, never makes the mistake
into which my hon. Friend has fallen. He always makes a great distinction between the landlords of urban or town dwellings and the agricultural landowner in the country. The agricultural landowner himself farms not less than one-third of the whole area of agricultural land, and to that extent it is right that lie should secure what every farmer will secure by a quota Bill. So far as the putting up of rents is concerned, I would point out that the agricultural landowner provides two-thirds of the capital for agriculture in this country—as Lord Ernle has pointed out many times, and it is being confirmed—for less than 2½ per cent. If he is not to be allowed to get his rents even up to 2½ per cent. or even less than he is getting now, agriculture must be in a very bad way. If my hon. Friend's party ever get into power and they nationalise the land, I am certain that they will not be content with the return that the agricultural landowner gets now. I hope the hon. Member will be more generous towards the agricultural landowner in the future.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is to be deplored that the right hon. Gentleman cannot utter one or two words to reassure a few of his followers who sit opposite to me. On every occasion that I have listened to Debates in this House whether on this Bill or other Bills of a somewhat analogous nature, I have always gathered that they feel that they have been rather had, that they have been passed the buck and that they are not very easy about it. They remind me of a somewhat cheerful gentleman who. went into a revivalist meeting. He had scarcely got into his seat before the-preacher on the platform said to the audience: "All those who are saved, please stand up." As this was an invitation for everybody to exhibit their virtues, everybody stood up, with the exception of the cheerful gentleman, who could not get up quite so quickly as the rest. By the time that he was on his feet the clergyman said: "All those who are not saved, stand up." As the cheerful gentleman and the clergyman were the only persons standing, he looked round and said to the preacher: "Well, guvnor, I don't know what we are voting about, but we have lost." My hon. Friends opposite are in much the same position. They scarcely knew
what they were voting about at the election, but they have certainly lost. They always tell us that that is so, and they nave certainly lost something. I think the right hon. Gentleman might reassure them that things are going on as well as could be expected from the kind of Government that they assisted to make.
What the right hon. Gentleman said on the previous Amendment does not reassure us. We have asserted that, on various grounds, and we have proved the case by economic reasoning, there would be an increase of rent under the terms of this Bill. That cannot be avoided. The law of supply and demand will see to that. We have always been assured that that would not take place, but the right hon. Gentleman now assures us that it will take place, that it ought to take place, and that quite justifiably it ought to take place. Therefore, part of the £6,000,000 is for the refurbishing and replenishing of the landlords' depleted exchequer, if it has been depleted. I think that five years is long enough for a Bill of this description. No one can say what is going to happen under the

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[4.25 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Briant, Frank
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.




John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Browne, Captain A. C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan, John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blindell, James
Burghley, Lord


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Borodale, Viscount
Burnett, John George


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bossom, A. C.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Castle Stewart, Earl


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Bill. If it were a Bill to guarantee the raising of human foodstuffs I could understand the terms of it and the conditions under which it has been pressed forward, but, like the hon. Baronet opposite—I assisted him in the process of eliciting the fact—I know that this Bill is not for the production of human food but more in the nature of a Bill to produce chicken food than anything else. It is not going to provide wheat for the milling of bread for human consumption but meals and wheat for the feeding of poultry to a large extent. I object to the eater of bread being taxed in order to provide the producer of poultry with cheaper fodder. It would be wise in the interests of everybody concerned that the Amendment should be accepted, that a term should be fixed and that the Bill should be considered at the end of that term. The Bill may be good for the landlord and the farmer, but it cannot, so far as I can see, be good for the great mass of the people.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 260.

Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hepworth, Joseph
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hornby, Frank
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clarke, Frank
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U


Cooke, Douglas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Robinson, John Roland


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cranborne, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross, Ronald D.


Craven-Ellis, William
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major Isidore


Denville, Alfred
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Doran, Edward
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scone, Lord


Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duggan, Hubert John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerveli, Donald Bradley


Eady, George H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Soper, Richard


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Edge, Sir William
McCorquodale, M. S.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Ednam, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Storey, Samuel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Strauss, Edward A.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Magnay, Thomas
Stuart. Lord C. Crichton-


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Templeton, William P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marsdon, Commander Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Martin, Thomas B,
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Meller, Richard James
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Milne, Charles
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moreing, Adrian C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Graves, Marjorie
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Munro, Patrick
Wells, Sydney Richard


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Captain Edward T.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hales, Harold K.
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Crovdon, S.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, Terence James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Withers, Sir John James


Hamilton, sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Hanbury, Cecil
Patrick, Colin M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hartington, Marquess of
Peat, Charles U.



Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Petherick, M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
and Major George Davies.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided also that twenty-five per cent. of the amount of deficiency payments which a registered grower is entitled to receive
under this section shall be distributed by the registered grower in equal shares among any persons employed by him in agriculture as a bonus over and above the rates of wages those persons are entitled to receive under the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and any sum
recoverable under this sub-section by a person employed by a registered grower may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
During all these discussions we have felt that the agricultural labourer is being more or less left to his fate, and since the speech of the Minister of Agriculture earlier this afternoon it becomes all the more necessary that some such provision as we suggest in this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. The intention of the Amendment is to confer a direct benefit on the agricultural labourer. The supporters of the Measure have endeavoured to justify it on the ground that farmers are in bad way, especially cereal farmers, and under this Clause farmers are expected to reap an immediate and a direct benefit. For the crops which are now growing in their fields they are expecting to reap some advantage from the Bill. Incidentally, the Clause is an illustration of what a Government can do for its political friends in the way of speedy assistance when it commands a majority in this House. The supporters of the Government have expressed a great deal of sympathy with the farm labourer. We are going to put that sympathy to a real test. We propose to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of translating their sympathy into something definite. They ought to be grateful to us for the opportunity.
We are told that as a result of this Measure there is likely to be a return of prosperity to the agricultural industry. We have also been informed that if agriculture declines the farm labourers suffer in proportion to the extent of the decline, but that, if the industry recovers a measure of prosperity, as a result of this measure, prosperity will come to the agricultural labourer as well. The right hon. Gentleman, however, wants that prosperity to come, not in a direct way by legal enactment, the way in which he seeks to give prosperity to the farmers, but by a somewhat indirect method. He imagines that as a result of the general prosperity which will come to the industry by reason of this Measure the agricultural labourer will derive some benefit. That is all problematical; it is leaving it to chance. We ask hon. Members opposite not to leave it to chance, but to insert in the Bill a provision which will ensure that if the farmers benefit by
the operation of the Bill the agricultural labourers will also get some advantage. The Minister, I know, will say leave it to the wages board. We are not quite certain about that. What about the inspectors he has dismissed? Does he intend to reinstate them in order to make sure that the wages board will work more effectively? We do not want to leave the matter to anybody. We want to give the agricultural labourer here and now, by legal enactment, some real advantage out of this Bill. I ask the supporters of the Government again to translate their sympahy so often expressed with the agricultural labourer into something real and definite. Let them come with us into the Lobby and insert these words in the Bill. The agricultural labourer has been the drudge of the industry through the ages. Are you going to leave him to his drudgery. The policy of the Bill is a policy of protection. If you are going to protect the farmers, then join with us in protecting the agricultural labourer. I appeal to the supporters of the Government to join us in the Lobby in support of this proposal.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to second the Amendment.
The £6,000,000 involved is to be distributed among a few, thousand farmers at the outside. Is it seriously suggested that not a single penny shall go to the agricultural labourer, without whose toil and skill not a solitary bushel of wheat could be raised? The Minister of Agriculture has suggested that a proportion of this sum will reach him by indirect methods, but against that there is the declaration of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) who during the Committee stage said:
The answer to this proposal is that it cannot be done on 45 shillings, for the simple reason that farmers cannot out of that price afford to pay higher wages than are being paid at the present moment.
The landlord, we have been told, is going to get his share; the farmer will certainly get his share, but the farm labourer is to get nothing, because the farmer cannot afford to pay more with the figure at 45s. Other hon. Members have dropped hints that there will be no money available for the labourer. By a perusal of the provincial Press, and particularly those in Eastern Counties where most of the wheat is grown, I find
that there are suggestions that 45s. is not enough; the farmer is not satisfied with it, and there is no hope whatever of the agricultural labourer getting a single penny out of the subsidy given to the industry. The agricultural labourer is going to be affected prejudicially by the Bill. In the first place, he is going to pay more for his bread.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON indicated dissent.

Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member shakes his head, but I speak with some knowledge of the baking trade, and I assert that the whole of the milling and corn trade declare that the price of bread is going to be raised as soon as the Bill comes into operation. The agricultural labourer, and his family, is a very heavy bread eater for the same reason that the poorest sections of our town populations are large bread eaters. It is the cheapest kind of food, and their small pittance does not permit them to buy food in any great variety. It therefore means that the agricultural labourer is not to benefit pecuniarily by sharing in the subsidy, and also that his economic position will be worsened, because there will be a tax upon him of from 8d. to 1s. per week by an increase in the price of bread of one halfpenny per quartern. Further, his economic position will be still more insecure than it is to-day; and for this reason. Conferences have been taking place in the Eastern Counties with the view of making arrangements for the amalgamation of adjoining farms in order that mechanisation may be introduced on a fairly large and extensive scale. There have been discussions as to the grubbing of hedges, cutting down trees and filling up ditches, and there have been applications to local magistrates to close rights of way and divert roads, all for the purpose of enabling large farming areas to be constituted.
What is the object of that? The object is that mechanisation may be introduced and labour costs reduced. The reduction of labour costs is not a reduction in the individual labourer's wage but a reduction of the total sum paid in wages in that particular area, and that can only mean a reduction in the number of farm labourers. The net effect of this Measure, as far as wheat growing is concerned, will not be to increase the number of
persons employed but to reduce the total number. All that is going to happen, therefore, is that you are to make the labourers' position more insecure than it it at present. That is all that the agricultural labourer is to get out of the Bill as it stands. His cost of living will be increased and his livelihood rendered more insecure. Our view is that in any scheme designed to benefit an industry which involves taxation of the nation, such gains as may accrue should not be confined to the employers of that industry but that the employés should share as well, and that some guarantee to that effect ought to be in the Bill itself. When addressing the House on an earlier occasion the Minister himself said, in the most specific terms, that the Bill gives something to the farming community as a whole. Those were his words. If that is so, surely all sections ought to participate. As the Bill stands there is no guarantee that the labourer will get anything.
We want not merely sympathy, but a definite legislative guarantee that the labourer shall have his appropriate share out of the largesse which is about to be distributed. We are told by the Minister that the labourer must rely for any improvement in his lot on the decisions of the agricultural wages boards. I repeat what I have said before, that it might happen in certain counties which are mainly arable, in the Eastern counties and so on, that with a general improvement in the farmers' prosperity the county wages boards will take the view that the labourers' wages should be increased by a shilling or two a week; but the county wages boards cannot elsewhere, in other districts of England, consider the case of individual farmers, however they may be made prosperous by this Bill; they can deal only with an area as a whole, with dairy farms and other farms as well as with cereal farms. In those areas, although individual farmers may be made very prosperous and may be marking large profits as a result of this Bill, yet there the boards would be in no position to award any share of such increased prosperity to the employés of those farmers whose business is mainly arable.
There are plenty of prosperous farmers to-day. No one can dispute that state-
ment. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) knows some. If he does not, I can tell him the names of a good many in his own county, with whom I am personally familiar. They are very prosperous and are doing extremely well. There are plenty of farmers, other than cereal farmers, who are really prosperous. But do they pay better wages because they get a bigger profit than their neighbours? It is not so. Everyone knows that these farmers pay the absolute minimum laid down by the county wages boards. There is no guarantee that the prosperity of an individual farmer will mean any improvement in the position of his employés. In the good old days, when agriculture was a prosperous industry, did the farmers pay their labourers decent or fair wages? Everyone knows that agriculture has always been a sweated industry. In the days when wheat fetched 60s. and 80s. a quarter the farm labourer's wages were 5s., 6s. and 8s. a week. There is no dispute about that. It is notorious that nine out of 10 farm labourers finished their days in the workhouse. There was the old pathetic phrase in the song that I learned as a boy:
Over the hills to the workhouse,
referring to the aged agricultural labourer. That was the fate of the labourer in the days when the farmers and landowners were really prosperous. We have no guarantee that with the return of prosperity to the agricultural industry there will be any sort of improvement in the labourer's lot unless Parliament intervenes. As far as I can gather from an examination of the facts, the agricultural labourer's economic position has never been improved except when Parliament has intervened. It is true that in a few localities the rise of trade unionism and organisation has helped him to a small extent, but the agricultural labourer is notoriously a very difficult person to organise. He is not segregated in masses like the town labourer, and it is very difficult for the trade unions to do very much for him. Except through the agency of the wages boards and the Corn Production Act, and by specific intervention of this House, the labourer's wage level has never been improved, as far as I know.
It may be that here and there a philanthropically-minded landowner or farmer has done something. I should be only too glad to pay tribute to such people if I could find them. I have heard of them but have never met them. The people I have met are the people, prosperous in their particular line, who pay the bare minimum wage of the wages boards. Now that this House is handing over enormous sums of public money to a. comparatively small group of farmers and landowners, we ask it also to ensure an amelioration of the lot of the working people by giving them some share. We have always been told by protectionists, in this House and outside, that protection meant protection for the employé as well as for the producer. We have been told that a guaranteed price would be associated with a guaranteed wage. That has been the theme of the tariff reformer and the protectionist whenever he has come down to address an industrial audience. Now is the chance. Here there is being given a species of protection to a section of a particular industry, and here is an opportunity to show that there shall be a guaranteed improvement in the wage of the agricultural labourer.

Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that the farmers in some districts are very prosperous. I wish he had come down to Devonshire, with which he has some acquaintance, and had been with me there last week. I happened to be at Okehampton Market, and one of the most intelligent and up-to-date and most industrious farmers in the district told me, "I have been farming for 50 years, and last year was actually the worst year I have ever had." There is not much prosperity there. It is not a corn-growing district; probably two-thirds is devoted to cattle. According to the hon. Gentleman the labourer's position now is very secure. I live in a country district. Only last Saturday I met an agricultural worker, an industrious man and who wants work, but lie said, "I cannot find any work to do; there is no work going on in the agricultural districts."
I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that unless something of the character of this Bill is done, the agricultural labourer will not be employed. He is not being employed now. I ask them to con-
sider the facts. We have this Bill. I am not greatly in love with the plan, but it does give some kind of guarantee that there shall be a fixed price paid to the arable farmer for his wheat. I ask hon. Members who are opposing the Bill to remember that the number of agricultural labourers has been decreasing very rapidly in the last 10 years. There is no question about it. The Ministry were good enough to furnish me with figures and I have made some extracts. In 1921 there were 996,000 agricultural workers in Great Britain. In 1931 there were only 828,000. That is a decrease of 163,000, or 17 per cent. Employment is declining all along the line. I assure the House as sincerely as I can that. unless some step of this kind is taken the agricultural labourers' ranks will he still further depleted and employment will be rendered far less secure than it is even to-day. I am positive of it. My interests are with, and I have always been supported by, the agricultural workers. I want to see them put into a stronger economic position. The only way to put the agricultural worker into a strong economic position is for some employer to want to employ him and to employ him at a profit. If you make agriculture commercially profitable there will be a demand for labour, but only if it is commercially profitable.
5.0 p.m.
If by this Bill we encourage arable cultivation we shall be adding strength to the agricultural workers. On arable land three men are employed to 100 acres, and on grassland only one man to 100 acres. In my own district I have seen land going down to grass, field after field, mile after mile. That means practically no labour. I would like to see far more labour employed on the land. But you cannot get that result unless farming is commercially profitable. This Bill does a little. It is a tiny little mouse of a Bill for a National Government. In the circumstances of to-day agricultural labourers' wages are being reduced. They have been reduced in many counties. There was an application the other day in my own county, and I am very glad that the wages board did not accede to it, for 32s. a week is not too much for an agricultural worker. I would far rather he had a good deal more. Here, again, the Ministry were good enough to supply me with a table
showing the counties where the wage actually is lower than 32s. and has been decreased. In Berkshire the wages have gone down from 30s. to 28s. 6d.; in Cheshire from 35s. to 32s. 6d.; in Gloucestershire from 30s. to 28s. 6d.; in Oxfordshire from 30s. to 28s.; in Suffolk from 30s. to 28s., and they have also gone down in Lincolnshire and Monmouthshire. I ask the Labour party, do they want to see that tendency continued? That is the tendency now. Remember, that in the last two years 60,000 agricultural workers have left the land. Those years happen to coincide with the term of office of the Labour Government, but I do not make any complaint about that. What happened has been the inevitable concomitant of the disastrous fall in prices. Now that an attempt is being made by this Government to reverse the process and give the agricultural worker a little more security, by making the product less of a loss, I ask hon. Members opposite, instead of criticising, to support the Government in the matter.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: In rising to oppose this Amendment, I crave that indulgence which the Members of the House usually extend to those who are addressing them for the first time. I oppose the Amendment, not because of any lack of sympathy with the proposal contained in it—for we are all only too anxious to do anything that we can to improve the lot of the agricultural labourer—but because it is impossible in present circumstances. A similar Amendment was rejected at an earlier stage, and it seems to me a little unfortunate that the proposal should have been brought forward again, because it may raise in the minds, perhaps, of the more ignorant of those for whose delectation it has been framed, hopes which must necessarily prove illusory. But I do not think that many will be affected in that way, because it seems to me that the results of the General Election showed that the agricultural workers and other workers in distressed industries—for agriculture is one of them—realise very clearly that the future of their industries is at stake, and that a preliminary to steady employment and increased wages is the restoration of those industries to something approaching prosperity. At any rate, I know that in that part of the country which
I have the honour to represent the minds of a great many agricultural labourers to-day are exercised, not so much about the quantum of the wages which they receive, as about whether or not they are going to get any wages at all. For years past they have seen more and more land going down to grass, and they know what that means in terms of employment. More recently, they have seen bankruptcies among farmers with alarming frequency, and wholesale dismissals have followed. In short, they realise that the industry in which, alone, they are skilled to earn their living, is going from bad to worse and that their only hope lies in its rehabilitation.
I have two criticisms of the Amendment to offer. The first is that it suggests that there is a direct relationship to-day between the wages of the agricultural worker and the value of the products of his labour. That is not the case. Low as agricultural wages are, and, as the last speaker pointed out, in Suffolk they are only 28s, a week, they would be lower still if they had fallen pari passu with the fall in the prices of farm products. They have been maintained by the wages boards, of which we have heard so much criticism, and they have been maintained by those boards at a level higher than the economic level, as everyone who is cognisant of the working of the boards is aware. My other criticism of the Amendment is that it shows a complete lack of appreciation of the position of the farmer. The farmer has been struggling to make ends meet, and he has been failing in that struggle. Now, and not a moment too soon, the Government are offering him a certain measure of help in this Bill. Surely no one suggests that the deciency payments which are provided for in this Bill mean a leap from what is virtually penury to affluence, and justify the giving of bonuses. That is very far from being the case.
To begin with, we have to remember that wheat represents only a fraction of the production of the ordinary farmer. Roughly, it is a quarter of the arable side of the business. In the second place, we have to remember that the standard price of 45s. a quarter has been fixed on the basis of to-day's production costs, and in those production costs the item
of wages bulks very largely. There may be, in exceptional circumstances and with particular advantages, men who can grow wheat at less than 45s. a quarter, but the vast mass of cereal growers of this country cannot do so, and their statements to that effect are amply borne out by the independent testimony of such bodies as the agricultural departments of the universities, and by other unbiased persons. All that these deficiency payments mean to the farmers is that the growing of wheat, which is an essential part of the ordinary rotation, will cease to be entirely unprofitable. There is no room, much as we should like to see it, for the giving of bonuses under the Bill as it is framed.
The Bill has been described as a life-buoy thrown to the farmer, and so it is, but it is a very small one. Its buoyancy is no greater than will enable the farmer to keep his head above water, and, if other people seek support from it, they will all drown. Many of us would have been very glad if the Government could have increased the standard price and so made provision for something for the farm labourer. We must recognise, however, that the Government have to hold the scales as evenly as they can, between the producer and the consumer, and we have to accept the fact that they have gone as far as they reasonably can. Of this, however, I am certain, that, if the measures now being taken by the Government and the measures which they propose to take to assist the farmer, result in the farmer eventually getting back to some degree of prosperity, the agricultural labourer will certainly share in that prosperity.

Mr. TINKER: I rise to support the Amendment, but before I put my point of view to the House I wish to compliment the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) on his speech. There is one thing which the House likes, and that is to hear a speech from one who has a good knowledge of the subject under discussion, and, whether we agree with the hon. Member's point of view or not, we all readily concede that he has shown a thorough grasp of this subject. I trust that other proposals of this character will receive his attention and that we shall have further contributions from him to our discussion's. In supporting the
Amendment, I wish to point out that this matter was fully discussed during the Committee stage, and it may be asked: What is the good of repetition? But things which matter deeply are worthy of repetition, and we are anxious to-day to press once again the claims of the agricultural labourer. I think our view has been strengthened by the speech of the tight hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). The Minister has tried to make us believe that the farmers would always be generous to the agricultural labourers and that the labourers would always get the share to which they are entitled. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton has told us that only recently the wages board was called into operation to resist an application by farmers for a reduction in wages. The right hon. Gentleman said he was very glad to know that the wages board had not acceded to that application, but had kept the wages at the present standard, which is already low enough.
The argument upon which this Amendment is based is that the farming community will not give the agricultural labourer the full measure of his due, and hence we want Parliament to protect the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer has not organisation and trade unions behind him to fight for his rights, and at the moment he has to depend on Parliament to protect him. If Parliament thinks it wise to give the farming community the benefit of this wheat quota, then Parliament has a right to see that the agricultural labourer gets his fair proportion of what is being given to the industry. A sum of £6,000,000 is to be given annually under this Bill to someone, and the argument that that sum will he spread evenly over these people does not meet with approval on these benches. We believe that some protection is necessary for some of the people concerned, and it is for that reason that we are so earnest in pressing this proposal. If we miss this opportunity of affording that protection we feel confident that this £6,000,000 will not get to the people who are entitled, in our opinion, to get it.
We have had examples in the past. In the case of the coal industry, for instance, one would have thought that the miners' trade unions would have been strong enough to get the miners their fair
share of what was given to that industry. But we were not strong enough—and we have powerful trade unions. If the miners could not get their fair proportion of the £23,000,000 given by Parliament to the coal industry, what hope is there for the agricultural labourers in this case, unless we adopt some proposal of this kind? The Minister said that this benefit was not for any particular section and that if you gave something to the wheat growing farmers it would be wrong to the others. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) put that argument on one side, however, when we discussed this matter previously, by saying that if it were to be made 60s. a quarter, the point of view which is put forward from these benches might then be considered. In other words, the principle would go by the board if we increased the price. The representatives of the farmers would say in effect, "If we get a bigger share of the swag we will consider giving the agricultural labourer a little more than we are giving him at present." But the House of Commons must have regard to the interests of the whole community and we claim that it is only right to protect those members of the community who certainly need protection at a time like the present. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will give us a little more encouragement on this occasion than he did when we moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before making a few remarks on this Amendment, may I join with the hon. Member who has just sat down in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) upon his excellent maiden speech? I am sure that I am echoing the feelings of many hon. Members on this side when I say that we shall welcome very much his further interventions in our Debates in this House. It seems to me that this Amendment is a mere vote-catching dodge. It cannot be put forward seriously, and I am not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is not here, that his name is not attached to the Amendment, and that he has not even graced the House with his presence during the time that it has been under discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will be in the Lobby!"] If he is in the Lobby, I shall think that his heart is a great deal better than his head, but up
to date I have not come to that conclusion.
The Amendment is based upon a complete fallacy. This deficiency payment is not a bonus, as the Amendment seeks to suggest, but it is, as its name implies, a deficiency payment, being the difference between the average price and the standard price of wheat, and it is designed for the purpose of making the growing of wheat profitable to the farmer, which it certainly is not at the present time. I really rose to object to the very intemperate, offensive, and deliberate remarks of the Mover of the Amendment in relation to the British farmer. I do not think it is right that remarks of that kind should be allowed to go unanswered in the House of Commons. It is not the first time that we have heard, in speeches from the same hon. Member, remarks which are characterised by intemperate—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and learned Member be good enough to refer to the observations which he has in mind?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Of course I will. That is the whole object I have in getting up. What he said was that the British farmer had never given any benefit to the agricultural labourer in the prosperous times which the farmer had enjoyed. That is absolutely untrue. Anybody who has any acquaintance with agriculture knows very well that the farmers all over the country are at present keeping their labourers on at very great personal cost to themselves. They are keeping on men whom, if they were the subject of unemployment insurance, they would be perfectly entitled to dismiss, and would dismiss, but they are keeping them on to-day, more on odd jobs around the farm, which are not remunerative, but to prevent them being thrown into idleness; and it ill becomes anybody who attempts to make any useful contribution to an agricultural discussion in this House to make any general observations of that kind, libelling the attitude of the British farmer towards his workmen.
The effect of the Amendment would be precisely nil, but, if it had any effect, it would be to discourage the British farmer from growing wheat. As an hon. Friend on this side said a few moments
ago, it is obvious that the only real prospect that the agricultural labourer has of getting good and steady work is through the organisation of a prosperous industry, and it is for the purpose of establishing a prosperous industry and making wheat farming pay that this method of a guaranteed price and a standard price has been arranged. I cordially recommend the Minister, even if he does condescend, as I do not think he need do, to examine the merits of the Amendment, not for a moment to consider adopting it, because, in my opinion, it is nothing more than a vote-catching dodge.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: A great deal of discussion has been devoted to this Amendment, and rightly so, because it introduces a principle to which I am fundamentally opposed, but I want to discuss, not so much the general principles involved in the Amendment, as some of the things which have been said in support of it. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), who moved it, seemed to have no recognition at all of the fact that at the present time the bulk of the wheat, that has been grown has been grown at a loss. The whole discussion has assumed that this was some present piled upon an already prosperous industry. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that the principle is, when you have a guaranteed price, that you should have a guaranteed wage. Surely the hon. Member must be aware that you already in effect have a guaranteed wage, but not a guaranteed price. This is the complementary of the Act passed in 1924, I think it was, which set up the agricultural wages board system. It is manifest to-day that actually the wages paid in agriculture are economically too high, though socially they are much too low, and so long as you desire to continue wages at a level which is economically too high, you will have to introduce measures of this kind to redress the balance.
There seemed to be not the slightest recognition of that fact in the mind of the Seconder of the Amendment. He said that the £6,000,000 which he estimated this Bill involved—that is to say, the sum which would be transferred to the growers of wheat when the scheme was fully in operation—would all go to the farmers. I think it is very probable
that the total additional sum which will go to the agricultural labourers as a result of the Bill will be very much larger than £6,000,000, because obviously, if you take on large numbers of additional people, the aggregate addition to the wage bill may be something substantially in excess of the bonus conferred on the farmers, but there seemed to be no recognition on the part of the Seconder of the Amendment of the effect on the aggregate wage bill.
The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) pointed out the very large decrease in agricultural employment which has taken place in recent years. It is now approaching a figure, since the boom days of 1920, of 200,000, and those 200,000 people have drifted into the towns, or those people who would have gone into agriculture have not done so, and you have an addition of some 200,000 to the urban population. You can say that 200,000 people on the live register to-day are displaced agricultural labourers, and they are costing, on the average basis of £1 a week for a person on the live register, a sum of £10,000,000 a year. That is one of the consequences, to some extent, of the world economic depression, to some extent of the interference in which Parliament deliberately indulged in 1924, and which successive Parliaments have approved.
If we assume that profit-sharing is desirable, I would appeal to the Front Bench opposite that, when they put down Amendments, they should take the trouble to draft Amendments which are capable of being put into practical operation. It is absurd to say that, irrespective of the circumstances of the individual farmer who receives these sums, he must pass on 25 per cent. There may be some individual farmers who are doing reasonably well when they receive the deficiency payment, and to them it might he easy to pass on 25 per cent., but there will be other farmers who may be doing badly and possibly incurring a loss at that time, and yet, without any consideration of the circumstances of the individual farmer, 25 per cent. of the deficiency payment must be passed on. Really, if hon. Members opposite want a system of profit-sharing—and there is something to be said for it and something to be said against it in practical administration—surely this is the crudest conceivable way of doing it.
I want to join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) in protesting against what was said with regard to what has happened in the past with agricultural wages. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) said that agricultural wages had never risen except when Parliament had interfered. That is not true. If he will take the trouble to go into the Library and get the pre-war number of the "Abstract of Labour Statistics," which gives the course of agricultural wages over a considerable number of years past, he will find that during a long period of years up to 1913, during none of which was there any specific interference by Parliament with agricultural wages, there was a very marked increase in the index number of agricultural wages. I can remember, even in my own lifetime on the countryside, the very marked increases in agricultural wages that took place between 1895 and about 1903, and it is not right that there should go forth from this House the statement that agricultural wages have never risen except as a result of specific interference by Parliament. The statement is inaccurate, and the principal reason that I rose was to challenge that statement, which ought never to have been made.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The House has shown itself very interested in the problem raised by this Amendment. I wish, however, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) would not take up the rôle of a lecturer when he addresses the House, because, if there is an example of bad drafting, it seems to me that the whole Bill itself is that example; and I would challenge the hon. Member to tell this House what some of the Clauses of the Bill itself mean. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture himself has never been able to explain satisfactorily what the Bill means, or some portions of it, and consequently we cannot be blamed for any bad drafting of Amendments, if we are to accept that criticism.
Let me now deal with one or two of the comments that have been made. It has been assumed that our Amendment, if carried, will give the agricultural labourer the whole of the £6,000,000 provided by the Bill. Nothing of the kind would follow. All that we want is that a proportion of the £6,000,000 shall go into the pockets of the agricultural
labourer, and we want this very sincerely, because there is not a single word in the Bill as it now stands which refers to the man who matters as much as anybody else, and that is the agricultural labourer. The farmer, the wheat grower, the landlord, the miller, the corn dealer, the provender miller are all in the Bill, but the man who actually works on the soil, and that is the farm labourer, is not mentioned. Consequently, the farm labourer, unless this Amendment is inserted, is going away empty handed, without a single penny piece of the £6,000,000.
It is always assumed by hon. Members who support the Bill that if you make this industry prosperous, that prosperity, or a part of it, will percolate of its own accord into the pockets of the agricultural workers. Nothing of the kind. It does not follow at all that when an employer is successful and does well, securing immense profits, he automatically transfers part of his prosperity into the pockets of his workpeople. I have seen the reverse taking place. I have actually seen the wages of workpeople decreasing just in proportion to the increase in the profits of the employers. The only power that I have come across yet that can, give the workmen, in agriculture, in mining, in shop life, or anywhere else, a decent standard of life is either Statute law or trade union action. People employed on the land are very difficult to organise, as hon. Members opposite will agree, and that is one reason why we come to Parliament to secure something for them.
5.30 p.m.
I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) deriding the idea behind this Amendment that we want to make statutory provision for a. minimum wage or a bonus for the workmen. If there is one profession above all that is safeguarded and protected at every turn by Parliament, it is the legal profession to which he belongs, and if there p.m. is a penny, or a shilling, or a pound to be got through Parliamentary activities, the legal profession is after it every time. They get 6s. 8d. for writing a letter no matter how long or short it is. It therefore ill becomes the hon. and learned Gentleman to talk as he did. If we were discussing
lace instead of wheat, he would probably alter his tone.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I must have created a wrong impression if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I was attacking the principle of fixing a minimum wage. I did not wish to do that in any way. What I was pointing out was that this payment was not a bonus at all, and that therefore it was not divisible in the way that the Amendment suggests.

Mr. DAVIES: Whenever we on this side want anything done for the working people through Parliament we either draft our words incorrectly or the thing cannot be administered properly; but when the Government want to give £6,000,000 per annum to the farmers it can be done in a few days with ease. If hon. Members on that side of the House wanted to give 25 per cent. of this £6,000,000 to the agricultural labourers, they would find a way to do it easily, but they do not want to do it, and their speeches to-day are nothing short of humbug. Every speech from the Government side to-day has sympathised profusely with the farm labourer, but once we put something on paper in order to deliver the goods, as it were, and put something in the farm labourer's pocket, it is always the wrong way. I am very anxious that the farm labourer should be considered in this connection. I am not going to say strong words about the farming interest; I know their difficult problems as well as most men here; but even when agriculture enjoys prosperous times, the agriculturist cultivates the art of grumbling better than anybody I know. This industry, however, is in a bad way, and I am willing to do anything I can for it.
You might imagine from the arguments of hon. Gentlemen who talk so glibly about helping the agricultural industry that it is the only industry in a depressed state. There are coal miners in my Division, and however poor the farming industry may be, I do not think that it is in as bad a condition as the coal mining industry. This Bill will call upon the coal miners and their wives and families among others to pay an enhanced price for bread to the baker, who will pass it on to the flour miller, and he in turn will pass it on to the farmer. The miners naturally want a portion of that enhanced
price to go into the pockets of the agricultural labourers. That is the meaning of our Amendment. There is nothing at all in the Bill to deal with the problem of agricultural labourers' wages unless this Amendment is carried. We are not asking for much. I was astonished to hear the speech of an hon. Member, who implied that we wanted to give the whole of the £6,000,000 to the agricultural labourers. Nothing of the kind. Suppose a farmer under this scheme get £100, even under our proposals he will still get £75. All we are asking is that the other £25 should be divided among his labourers. If there were five they would get only £5 each and the farmer £75.
If there be anything in the argument that we should encourage the growing of wheat in this country, let me ask hon. Gentlemen if it is not fair to say that the inducement should not stop with the farmer alone. The agricultural labourer himself ought also to be induced by the same means to help in the production of wheat. One would imagine from the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon that this was a new principle. He is, of course, opposed to the principle. Let me remind him what happened under the Corn Production Act of 1920. It established a fixed price for wheat, and because it did that Parliament went further and said that the agricultural labourer should not be left out of account. A minimum wages board, therefore, was established in order to safeguard the conditions of the agricultural worker. That is all that we are asking in this Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No.

Mr. DAVIES: Well, we, in fact, are asking for less than that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will he satisfied, for it seems that the less we ask for the working class the more pleased he will be. This is not a new principle. In co-partnership schemes, one of which exists in London on a large scale, an inducement is given to the workpeople by way of a bonus paid at the end of the year out of profits. Surely, if hon. Gentlemen approve of a proposal like that, they ought to accept our Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are no profits in agriculture!"] There will be £6,000,000 going annually into the pockets of the
farmers. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to think that this £6,000,000 is intended to make up the farmers' losses. That will not be the case. There is as much difference between one farmer and another working the same soil as there is between one good lawyer and another, and that is saying a great deal. I know farmers who are tilling exactly the same kind of soil in the same valley in the same area, and one will make his farm pay while another will always suffer a loss. That, of course, is common throughout life.
What are the rates of wages paid now? This is the only opportunity that we shall get of touching the problem of the wages of the 750,000 people employed on the land. I have found out what reductions in wages have taken place in agriculture. If there were sufficient inspectors employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, I am not sure but that they would find that there is a considerable number of farm labourers who are so disorganised from the trade union point of view that they are not bold enough to demand the legal minimum wage already provided for them. In Derbyshire the wages were reduced in 1931 from 36s. to 33s. 9d. for a week of 54 hours. In Gloucestershire all wages were reduced by 5 per cent., and the adult male rate now stands at 28s. 6d. a week. When hon. Gentlemen vote on this Amendment, whatever the words may be, let them picture a man with a wife and five or six children living on 28s. 6d. a week in the countryside. Hon. Members have to face that issue in the Division Lobby shortly. This is not merely a question of economics; it is a human problem. When the hon. Member for South Croydon said that the wages of the agricultural labourer were too high from an economic point of view, let me put this to him.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I hope that the hon. Member will complete my sentence, that the wages were too low from a social point of view.

Mr. DAVIES: I am not trying to misrepresent the hon. Member. He said all that, I agree, but I want to remind him that the trade board rate in the laundry trade, in the chain making trade and in in a host of other trades were laid down without any reference at all as to whether the employer could pay his way
or not. In 1916 I had the task of dealing with a strike of 200 adult women in a laundry, who were working 52 hours a week for under 10s. wages. The trade board rate was laid down later for the laundry industry because of the shameful conditions under which the women were employed. When the trade board rate was laid down, the Government and the trade board never took any account of whether the industry could pay that wage. The increase was passed on to the consumer. This £6,000,000, too, will be passed on to the consumer, and we want the agricultural labourer to have a share of it.
Hon. Members say that farmers will be willing to treat their labourers decently. There may be some who will, but others will not. I know a farmer who died and left £30,000, and the wages he used to pay to his workpeople were a disgrace to civilisation. If the Government allow this £6,000,000 to go into the pockets of the farmers and deny a penny piece to the farm labourers, they will not soon forget the action of the Government. I appeal in the name of these men in the countryside who are unfortunate, and are often not free to say what they think. They are bound by conventions; they are constantly under the eyes of the employer, and in some cases they may have to attend the same church as the employer. Those hon. Gentlemen who use sympathetic words on behalf of the agricultural labourer, will, I hope, very soon translate that sympathy into actual practice in the Division Lobby.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The House will recollect that we discussed this problem at some length on the Committee stage. I make no complaint that the Amendment is not framed in a form in which it could practically be worked. I recognise that the Opposition have difficulty in framing Amendments in order to meet all the circumstances. It is right, however, that I should point out that the Amendment is so framed that even if the House decided that this should accrue to the advantage of the workers, it would not apply to the workers in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. That is a fundamental defect in the Amendment. On the other hand, while it is legitimate for those who are interested in the position of the agricultural worker or indeed any class of
worker to urge that this House should be careful in legislation to see that there is a reasonable opportunity for the consideration of the remuneration of those employed in industry, let me point out what has already been mentioned, that the Agricultural Wages Act is in operation.
It is perfectly true that the Corn Production Act, of unhappy memory to those engaged in agriculture, was intended to promote cereal farming, but it also provided the machinery of the wages boards, and that machinery has remained and is in operation to-day. This Amendment, if it were put into operation, would bring about diversity by the handing over of sums of money to certain individuals. There would be grievances raised between the labouring classes in one parish and those in another, and between the workers on one farm and on another. It would lead to the very greatest amount of confusion. In agricultural employment there is a minimum rate of wages, with different payments to certain classes of men in the industry. Suppose that this method were adopted, and subsequently the representatives of labour in a district went to the wages board and asked for an increase of wages for agricultural workers. Is it not obvious that the greatest amount of confusion would arise, and that this bonus would be a detriment to those claims? It would be said at once: "Those who are engaged in cereal production are already getting more money, and we are not going to consider the question of raising the wages of the rest." In my view, that would be detrimental to the general body of wage earners in the country districts, and I think the House will be well advised to resist this Amendment now, as they did at an earlier stage.

Mr. ATTLEE: I really am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should attack this Amendment on the ground that it will create anomalies. He is introducing a Measure which will create great discrepancies between various types of farmers. He is giving a special bonus to wheat growers, but doing nothing for the men who are growing barley or oats; and in another Bill those who are producing meat have been left out of consideration. He is making flesh of one, fish of another, and fowl of another. Yet at the same time that he
is creating all these anomalies between farmers he gets up and protests that this Amendment will produce anomalies between different types of agricultural labourers. Why did he not take that line when he was replying to our Amendment on rents? He was perfectly happy that this subsidy from the pockets of the workers should enhance the rents of landowners who happen to have land under wheat, and did not complain that other landowners might come along and say, "Our farmers are not getting the subsidy, and so we cannot raise rents." We are prepared to take our stand where the right hon. Gentleman took his stand in regard to rents. He was quite ready to take whatever he could get for the landlords, and we are quite willing to take whatever we can get for the labourers. We do not think the Bill is a good Bill, but we are entitled to try to secure whatever advantages we can from it.
As usual, we were attacked, in a very pontifical manner by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He said that we were proposing to take this 25 per cent. from the farmers without regard to their profits, and suggested that we should go to the Library and read a great deal. I suggest that he should go to the Library and read something about wages. He will find that wages are settled by agreement or legal enactment without special reference to the case of every individual. When we fix wages for a particular trade we do not have to show what the effect is to be on each individual employer, and whether he can make this or that amount of profit. Wages are settled by collective agreements which provide for so much per cent, increase, and the trade as a whole has to pay, irrespective of the position of the individual traders engaged in it. Unfortunately, we have been defeated in our attempts to see that the benefits to accrue to a section of the agricultural industry should go to the people actually engaged in the industry, the farmers, and not be taken by the landlords; now we are trying to secure

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, William G.
Edwards, Charles


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dagger, George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Buchanan, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Cape, Thomas
Deviln, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

that, at all events, some advantage should accrue to the agricultural labourers. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what difficulties there are in getting a reasonable standard of wages.

The plea was put forward by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that under the Corn Production Act we provided a subsidy for wheat on the one hand, and on the other hand dealt with agricultural wages, and he put forward the contention that this Measure is a bare act of justice to farmers in giving them something in return for the advantage which the agricultural labourer has had from wages boards. But the labourer has not had the advantage of wages at the same rate as he was getting then. When we are discussing these questions we get a point of view put forward, even in opposition to the Government, from Liberal Members and from Conservative Members, but if we want the most reactionary view, the most slavish following of the Government, without a spark or suggestion of humanity, we get it from those who were formerly Labour Members and have now crossed the Floor. I do not think the hon. Member did justice to the situation, because he knows perfectly well that the wages of agricultural labourers have fallen since the days of the Corn Production Act; and we also know that the right hon. Gentleman has taken care that wages boards shall not be effective by reducing the number of inspectors. The object of this Amendment is to lay it down definitely that where, by legislation, sums of money extracted from taxpayers or consumers are handed over to particular interests they shall be tied up with conditions, and we are trying to make them conditions for the benefit of the community and for the benefit of the workers. The House ought not to consider merely the vested interests of a certain number of employers.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 289.

Grundy, Thomas W.
Leonard, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Thorne, William James


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Jenkins, Sir William
McGovern, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Kirkwood, David
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen



Lawson, John James
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denville, Alfred
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Dickle, John P.
James, Wing Com. A W. H.


Albery, Irving James
Dixey, Arthur C. N
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Doran, Edward
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drewe, Cedric
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Duggan, Hubert John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Knight, Holford


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Eady, George H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Ednam, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lees-Jones, John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Levy, Thomas


Blindell, James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Liddall, Walter S.


Borodale, Viscount.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bossom, A. C.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bracken, Brendan
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mabane, William


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gledhill, Gilbert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Glossop, C. W. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Brown,Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Goff, Sir Park
McKie, John Hamilton


Browne, Captain A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Buchan, John
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Magnay, Thomas


Burghley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Burnett, John George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hales, Harold K.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Carver, Major William H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Milne, Charles


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hanbury, Cecil
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hartington, Marquess of
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Clarke, Frank
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastlc)
Munro, Patrick


Clayton Dr. George C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Colville, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hepworth, Joseph
North, Captain Edward T.


Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nunn, William


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
O'Connor, Terence James


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.


Crossley, A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pearson, William G.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Peat, Charles U.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Penny, Sir George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Davison, Sir William Henry
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Petherick, M.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnst ple)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)




Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Train, John


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsay, Alexander (W, Bromwich)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)


Ramsden, E.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Soper, Richard
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyisde)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stones, James
Whyte, Jardine Beil


Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, Samuel
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rosbotham, S. T.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ross, Ronald D.
Strauss, Edward A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Withers, Sir John James


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Templeton, William P.
Wragg, Herbert


Salmon, Major Isldore
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thompson, Luke
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scone, Lord
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lord Erskine and Commander


Selley, Harry R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Southby.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "and market conditions."
This is an Amendment which the Minister of Agriculture said he would consider when we reached the Report stage, but from a communication I have received I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept it. The words "market conditions" are intended to cover both the supply, the price, and the demand which there may be on the market. My point is whether the term "market conditions" contemplates the price, the supply, and the demand after the Minister has made the Order. If that is so, there is no longer a free market, and the demand and supply are artificial. I want to know if the term "market conditions" means the conditions that would obtain if no Order had been made. Will the Wheat Commission, in fixing the price, proceed as if there had been no Order made, and would the price be that which would have existed in the free play of the market? The circumstances existing before and after the Order is made may be entirely different so far as the prices are concerned. I am moving to leave out these words, because we have been given to understand that it was the intention of the Government that the price should be fixed as if no Order had been made, and that would be the ordinary market price. We have to take into account the fact that the demand may be an artificial demand, and the supply may be compulsory.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am advised that this is a problem which it will be much better to leave for the consideration of the practical body which will have to deal with it. It may be found in some cases very desirable to retain the words "market conditions" which cover, as I have already explained, the question of price, supply, and demand. If we adopted very precise words, there might arise some conditions which are at present unforeseeable, and which if they were not specially mentioned in the Bill might cause great difficulty.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the Minister say whether it will be an artificial demand which will be created by his Order that has to be considered or the demand which would have existed if he had not made the Order? Which of these does the Minister intend should be taken into account.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will be the conditions after the Order. No farmer is bound to sell his wheat at the scheduled price if he can get a better price elsewhere. It is essential that we should have the greatest freedom in dealing with these matters, and the rules and regulations will be carried out by practical people including millers, farmers, and corn merchants.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Once the Flour Millers' Corporation is set up, will it not dominate the conditions of the market? Under this Bill, the price is to be fixed according to market conditions,
and we are asking for these words to be deleted so that the price may be based upon other conditions, and not necessarily the market conditions which may be rigged or predetermined by the bodies which are going to purchase. I think the Minister ought to examine all the possibilities of these words. If this Amendment is rejected, the millers will have an opportunity of rigging the market, and the contracts entered into will be one-sided. If the Minister of Agriculture is unable at the moment to accept this Amendment, perhaps he may be willing to give us an assurance that this point will be dealt with in another place.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Determination of "ascertained average price," "standard price," and "anticipated supply" of home-grown millable wheat.)

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word "the" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"following


Cereal year ending
Price per hundredweight.


July 1933 -
Ten shillings.


July 1934 -
Nine shillings and eightpence.


July 1935 -
Nine shillings and fourpence.


July 1936 -
Nine shillings.


July 1937 -
Eight shillings and eight-pence."

This Amendment contains the same principle as the Amendment which was moved on a previous occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen), which was supported by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). The hon. and gallant Member said that they hoped for great things from his Amendment, and the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton, in supporting that proposal, was very emphatic, and said that there were a number of bright young Conservatives who would follow her into the Lobby. Unfortunately, the bright young Conservative who moved the Amendment did not follow the Noble Lady into the Lobby, and I do not know why. Perhaps the Noble Lady over-estimated the market in reference to those bright
young Conservatives, because there was not such a great supply as she imagined.

The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead was rather more drastic than the one I am putting forward. I am proposing that the price per cwt. in July, 1933, shall be 10s.; in 1934, 9s. 8d.; 1935, 9s. 4d.; 1936, 9s.; and 1937, 8s. 8d. We have been assured already that this Bill is a purely temporary one. The idea of bringing it definitely to an end after five years has been rejected, but there is still the question whether we cannot avoid the danger of establishing what the Noble Lady called a permanent dole. I would like to recall to the Minister these rather drastic words of the Noble Lady:
This subsidy, which we now call a deficiency payment, is really, to be honest, a dole. I believe in plain words when you come to deal with plain facts. We want to be certain that it is a temporary dole. None of us would dispute that there is need for a temporary dole for the wheat farmers. We do not grudge it in the least."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; cols. 337–8, Vol. 263.]

I am inclined to agree that something temporary must be done for the wheat farmer, but it is a question of principle whether there should be a fixed rate of subsidy continuing year after year, or whether this House should not express in the Bill a definite intention that this is to be merely a temporary subsidy to tide over a transition in agricultural methods. The Minister will probably reply that he has already made provision for a review, but I would point out that that is not a review of the whole scheme, but a review of the standard price, to determine whether it should go up or down. We hold that the right plan for agriculture is a comprehensive plan for a turn-over from wheat cultivation. We do not deny that some wheat should be grown, but we do not believe that, under present conditions of wheat production in the world, wheat can ever be a major crop in this country, and we do not believe that the wheat area should be extended. According to information that I have had from those who know fairly well, there is a tendency to increase it, and there seems to be a tendency to do so in this Bill, for, with a subsidy like this, there must be a tendency for farmers to grow a crop
as to which there is certainty. We believe that, as regards the arable counties, the question should be dealt with on broad lines, and that, while we agree that some temporary assistance should be given to wheat growing during the change-over, it should be a condition that the change-over does take place.

The danger about this Measure is that it imposes no conditions whatever, but amounts to a mere dole, as the Noble Lady said. The present Government are very strong on attaching conditions to the dole when it is given to the worker, but they attach no conditions when it is given to the farmer. It has a terrible effect on the character of the workers and on their working powers unless there is a means test and every other kind of test, but to this dole no conditions whatever are attached, and the Minister has steadily rejected all attempts to put in tests of any kind. We think that the farmer should have definite notice that this is not a fixed dole, but is going to be on a steadily descending scale. We have been told by hon. Members on the other side that the profits of farming vary very much between farmer and farmer, but it is not suggested by anyone who is seriously interested in agriculture that we should endeavour to promote the growing of wheat on unsuitable land, or by those who are not capable of producing it to advantage. It is admitted that, with the opportunities given in this Bill, some farmers will do very well. Indeed, it has been shown by the Minister of Agriculture that the profits will not only be sufficient for the farmer—who, as we are told, is always very generous to the agricultural labourer—but that there will also be a surplus for the landlord. We have also been told to-day about the drifting of agricultural workers into the towns, and about the breaking down of hedges in order to go in for large-scale mechanisation. That may be the right way of doing it, and it may be right to encourage it, but it is not right to set up permanently in this country an industry which has to depend on a subsidy, an industry carried on by a huge class of farmers who will, in effect, be living on a permanent dole.

We suggest that the only way to make this Bill at all dynamic is to say that this assistance is given for a special purpose, that the amount will be a declining one,
and that it will, therefore, be up to every farmer to reconsider whether it is worth his while to continue growing wheat, or whether he will take advantage of this gift at the expense of the consumers to reorganise his agriculture. If that be not done, then, at the end of five years, or at whatever time the review may be made, the position will be just as bad as it is to-day. We have heard speeches, from those who claim to represent farmers, complaining that they are not getting nearly enough, while any sort of payment by the farmer is complained of bitterly. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and others remind me very much of a picture which appeared in "Punch" some years ago, of two small children on a hot summer day who were begging—and shivering. When they were asked why they shivered, they said: "That is the only way we have been taught to beg." I notice that kind of attitude on the part of certain farmers' representatives here. I hope that they are not fair representatives of the farmers, and I do not think that they do represent fairly the more progressive section, but, unless this Amendment is accepted, and the principle of it embodied in the Bill, the Bill will merely be one to provide a dole to send the farmers to sleep and prevent any progress, and, when the time for review comes, the position will be found to be much the same as it is to-day. We shall still have an unprogressive agricultural industry, and shall merely have put the burden of another vested interest on the backs of the consumers.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I congratulate the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on his witty speech in moving this Amendment. It seems to me to be a most sensible Amendment, and I hope that it will be received sympathetically both by the Government and by hon. Members generally, and particularly by the followers of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who was so much in favour of a graduated scale. The principle which the Noble Lady laid down, and which was so ably supported by the hon. Member for Limehouse, is surely in accordance with good farming. We know that there are differences of opinion as to whether an excessive production of wheat is advisable in this country, but the pro-
posal of this Amendment is on the same lines as the assistance which a banker gives to a trader. If it be an advantage to grow wheat, it will be demonstrated by a gradual reduction of the wheat subsidy, while if, on the other hand, it is a disadvantage, the community will benefit by the reduction of the subsidy. That is in accordance with common sense, sound finance, and justice to the agricultural community. Many farmers who support this permanent dole of 10s. per cwt. will agree that it may divert the energies of farmers who would otherwise grow barley or other cereals to an excessive production of wheat, and I hope that this proposal that, while the State recognises that there is distress, and is, very properly, willing to help agriculture, the subsidy should be a gradually declining one, will meet with sympathy from the representatives of the Government. I hope that the Government will be prepared to make some concession, or to meet the hon. Member in some way, and that the suggestion that the principle of gradually reducing the subsidy is in accordance with justice to agriculture will be supported, if necessary, in the Division Lobby.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, but, after certain flattering remarks that have been made about me, I feel that I ought to explain the attitude that I take towards this Amendment. I oppose it for the same reason that I stated in proposing the previous Amendment. I pointed out that it was not adequately worded, and that it should have been combined with a scheme to assist the other branches of agriculture—animal husbandry and so on. This Amendment makes no attempt to assist any other branch of agriculture. The attitude of those who support it is merely one of destroying any assistance to the wheat grower. The annual reduction proposed would exclude those farmers whose crop rotation does not happen to fall within the 10s. year. The Minister's answer to my Amendment was that the whole matter was coming up for review in three years, and, although the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) pointed out that that was a review of price only, surely the price is the keynote of the whole situation; if the price is to be reviewed in three years, it can be put at such a figure
that the matter will be of consequence or of no consequence to the farmer as the case may be. With that review in three year's time, I am content, and, therefore, I oppose this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I am pleased to listen to any hon. Member who makes explanations in this House. I only wish that explanations had been forthcoming a little more liberally from the Front Bench on many points in connection with this Bill. But the hon. and gallant Member must be aware that the other aspects of agriculture to which he referred could not be included in this Wheat Bill. It has been stated that the object of the Bill is to help farmers to help themselves. Everyone will agree that that is a very desirable object, but I am rather of opinion, from the discussions which have taken place and the statements which have been made, that farmers will be at a loss to understand how they are going to be helped through the medium of this Bill. I cannot forget the details given by the Oxford Research Institute, which displayed the possibilities of farming when conducted on scientific lines. If the incentive that is being given in the form of the figures referred to in the Amendment is subject to continual reduction for the years indicated, that will meet the desire of giving an incentive to the farmers, and they will realise that from time to time they will have a little less than they previously had, and will take advantage of the higher figure to make themselves more competent in producing wheat. That is all that they are entitled to receive and, therefore, I support the Amendment.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As has been said by more than one Member, this question, though in a slightly different form, was fully discussed in Committee and, therefore, I propose to say only a word or two. It will be obvious that the Amendment would entirely alter, or indeed destroy, the method adopted by the Government, which is that there should be three years' security for the farmers, and that the situation should then be reviewed. The advantage of that system is so obvious that it really needs no explanation or elaboration. Keeping before one all the assumptions present in the speeches of the supporters
of the Amendment, it is clear that, whether you regard the Bill as giving a breathing-space to the farmer for changing where necessary the type of farming on which he is engaged, or whether you are tiding him over a particularly difficult period, you achieve the result aimed at far better by giving him three years and a certain fixed payment rather than a payment which is at its maximum only for one year and is then reduced by the somewhat sinister sum of 4d. I cannot but think that, even if the House were approaching the question for the first time, or if anyone was engaged in framing a Bill himself, he would prefer the method the Government have adopted of three years in which the farmers know where they are, to this purely illusory assistance which is at its maximum only for one year and then reduces itself automatically.
Take, for instance, the view which has been expressed that a large profit is going to be made by the farmer from this subsidy. If that were true, surely it would be much better that the assistance, if it was going to be so valuable, should be for at least three years, so that a progressively-minded farmer would be able to save some capital in order to help him in the transference to another method of farming. That would seem in itself an argument in favour of having a fixed amount for the next three years. I think it is unnecessary, in view of the full discussion that there has been in Committee, to elaborate the matter further. When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. M. Mason) asked us to make some concession, I do not think he can have hoped for a favourable reply, because any concession leading to the immediate introduction of a sliding-scale would cut absolutely and destructively across the principle adopted by the Government of security for three years and then complete revision.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his loyalty to his chief, though it is to be regretted that he seems to have thrown overboard the Minister of Agriculture. The Secretary for Scotland talked about this being a purely temporary Measure, and the hon. Gentleman entirely agrees with him.

Mr. SKELTON: If the hon. Gentleman will read my remarks in the OFFICIAL
REPORT, there is absolutely nothing on which such an argument could be based. I confined myself to the issue of an immediate sliding scale or revision at the end of three years. That is not necessarily abolition.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us whether he is a supporter of a permanent scheme or a temporary one?

Mr. SKELTON: That would be out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman prefers three years' security, and he wants the price to be so large that ample savings can be set on one side, so that at the end of the three years there may be a change over to newer methods. That is the whole point of the Opposition. You are not subsidising just that section of farmers who really need it most. You are giving to rich and poor alike. You do not discriminate between good, indifferent and bad land. It is the same subsidy all along the line. Not only is the subsidy equitable as between all kinds of land in all counties, but you preserve it for the period of three years before even you start to think of the effect of it, and only then do you start to think about the effect of the subsidy from the point of view of whether it is going to be increased or decreased. The consumer is not even to be considered. We suggest that it would have been far better, if a subsidy is to be given, that it should be for a limited period on a sliding scale basis. We have had the beet-sugar subsidy. We have all been the recipients of documentary evidence that goes to show that either it has been a waste of money or that it has not, according to the view one takes of the literature one has read. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to tell us that at the end of three years a committee will be set up which will be looking into the economics of the industry. That seems to me to be the worst possible policy that any Government could pursue. Any decision that is reached will be reached upon the basis of political pressure. It would be far better, if you wish to be generous, to have the subsidy on a reducing scale, which would be the finest inspiration to the wheat farmer to do what is likely to be best for himself and
best for the industry and the country at the end of that time.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved a similar Amendment in Committee has given a very curious excuse for withdrawing it. He suggested that he did so because the Minister promised that something was going to be done for other agricultural commodities. Let us see exactly what he said when he moved the Amendment.
The first object of the Amendment is to make the Bill a temporary and not a permanent one. We had an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland when he replied to the Debate on Second Reading, but I have not yet seen anything definite in the Bill to say that it is a temporary Measure. We have admissions from some of the representatives of the farmers that the Bill is a lottery, and if it is going to be a lottery, as was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Peterborough (Lord Burghley), I hope it will be a lottery for a short period.
Now he tells us that he had in mind some other agricultural commodity than wheat. He proceeded to say:—
I want to see temporary assistance given to the farmer during this time of severe depression, but I do not want him to get into the habit of relying upon a high price obtained by law from the consumer. I want this to be a temporary arrangement to put the farmer on his own feet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; col. 320, Vol. 263.]
Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman really mean that? If so, I do not see how he can avoid supporting this Amendment. He argued in favour of a sliding

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[6.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broadbent, Colonel John
Craven-Ellis, William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Ainsworth, Lieut-Colonel Charles
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Albery, Irving James
Browne, Captain A. C.
Crossley, A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burghley, Lord
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Applin, Lieut.-Cot. Reginald V. K.
Burnett, John George
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Castle Stewart, Earl
Denville, Alfred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dickie, John P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Doran, Edward


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Drewe, Cedric


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Duggan, Hubert John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Eady, George H.


Blindell, James
Colville, John
Eden, Robert Anthony


Borodale, Viscount.
Conant, R. J. E.
Elmley, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Boyce, H. Leslie
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cranborne, Viscount
Everard, W. Lindsay

scale but, for some curious reason for which no explanation was given, he consented to withdraw his Amendment and voted with the Government. We feel that, if the subsidy must be given, it is far better that an amount should be fixed which is fair and equitable, and that the distribution should be on such a basis that the money would find its way into those places where it is most necessary and that it should be on the sliding scale basis. We know what the policy will be in three years' time. The Farmers' Union, in the future as in the past, will make their demands, and they usually get a very reasonable response. The agricultural party has been spoken of as the pampered darlings of the Tory party. We prefer that the decision should be taken not three years' hence but to-day, in the light of day, without any jiggery-pokery or political pressure from outside. If the Government adopted that policy, they would be saved from themselves in the years that lie ahead, and they would in no way adversely affect the wheat producer. For these reasons, we shall persist in demanding that the subsidy is paid on a sliding-scale basis if it is to be paid at all. The last we can do is to point out what we regard as the wisest thing for the Government, the farmers and the nation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 63.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gledhill, Gilbert
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glossop, C. W. H.
Magnay, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Martin, Thomas B.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Soper, Richard


Granville, Edgar
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stones, James


Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Storey, Samuel


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hanbury, Cecil
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Munro, Patrick
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n]
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
North, Captain Edward T.
Templeton, William P.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hepworth, Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Thompson, Luke


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Patrick, Colin M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Weymouth, Viscount


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsden, E.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kirkpatrick, William M,
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Knight, Helford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland
Wise, Alfred R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel L.
Withers, Sir John James


Law, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Walter James


Leckle, J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lees Jones, John
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wragg, Herbert


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Levy, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Erskine.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salmon, Major Isldore





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kirkwood, David


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Leonard, William


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McGovern, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Daggar, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hirst, George Henry
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Maxton, James


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Janner, Barnett
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pickering, Ernest H.

Price, Gabriel
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David



Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, William James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "seven and a half," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
The Amendment which I propose is to be read with the succeeding Amendment standing in my name, in page 6, line 6, after the word "will," to insert the words "represent wastage or." When this particular Clause was being considered in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that he was somewhat impressed by the arguments that were adduced, and he made the following statement in the course of the discussion:
I do not think we are very far apart. As I understand it, we are all alive to the fact that we must make an allowance for wastage. What we demur to is being tied down definitely to 2½ per cent. I am quite willing to look into it between now and Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; col. 407, Vol. 263.]
The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to intimate, that he cannot accept the Amendment, but he has sent a communication which considerably clarifies the whole position, and, if he will be good enough to repeat to the House what he has said in writing, we shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do that in order that it may be placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): On behalf of the Minister, I am quite prepared to give here the statement which was given to the hon. Gentleman in the letter which was written to him from the Ministry in regard to this matter. The proposal in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is that in addition to the 7½ per cent. which will be taken into account for seed, another fixed rate of 2½ per cent. shall be taken into account for wastage, making 10 per cent. altogether. I cannot do better than give to the House the substance of the letter sent to the hon. Member, which, if not entirely, mainly affects the point. It would be best to explain to the Com-

mittee the nature of the calculations that the Minister will have to make in arriving at the anticipated supply, which is, after all, the governing matter in this connection. Early in August this year he will have to make, on the basis of the growers' returns of the acreage of wheat, which they will have to send to the Wheat Commission, and on the basis of the estimates of yield per acre made by the official crop reporters of the Ministry, a preliminary estimate of the total wheat crop of the harvest. The official crop reporter's estimate of the yield per acre is always made in a form which relates to the total yield of wheat, including the tail corn. In making the calculations for the purpose of working this Bill the Minister has to arrive at another figure, namely, the quantity of millable wheat which will possibly be marketed by the growers. Therefore, the Minister must deduct from this preliminary estimate formed from the returns of acreage by the growers and from the estimate of crop yield tail corn, damaged corn, and wastage in that part of the crop which is likely to be kept in stack for several months after the harvest before it is threshed. The third factor is, of course, mainly due to the fact that over a series of years there are statistics available which show that either from rats or through other deterioration of a certain amount of wheat kept in stacks in winter months there is a certain percentage lost or wasted. That will be taken into account in making the calculations of the anticipated supply.
Accordingly, this Amendment, if it were carried, would mean that that rate of wastage would have to be fixed at 2½ per cent., which may not be the correct figure. It may be more or it may be less according to conditions or according to the reports received by the Minister of Agriculture. In addition, if it were carried, it would, construing it with the other terms and Clauses of the Bill, be making a calculation of wastage twice over. Accordingly, I hope that this explanation will clear up why on investigation it was found inappropriate for the Minister to accept the Amendment
put forward by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), and I hope that the explanation I have given will have publicity outside so that farmers may know exactly where they are.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Quota payments by millers and importers.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out the words "which would have been."
This is an Amendment which I moved in Committee, and which the right hon. Member said he will be good enough to consider. It is to simplify the drafting, and I understand that, on consideration, he is prepared to accept it.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, after the word "that," to insert the words:
a miller shall not be liable to make quota payments in respect of any hundredweight of his output which consists only of wheat meal delivered by him for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food, and.
I have put down this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which follow to give effect, as promised, to the intention contained in an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) in Committee. The hon. Member stated that his object was to give to other millers the same exemption as is given to provender millers in respect of meal for feeding animals and poultry, and this Amendment meets the point of substance raised in Committee. By this Amendment the miller will not be liable to make quota payments for wheat meal used for poultry or other animal food, but, on the other hand, the miller who is a large manufacturer of such meal will not be entitled to a miller's certificate. The Amendment further provides that the exemption shall apply only to wheat meal for consumption without further manufacture. I emphasise the words "without further manufacture." It bears out the intention that the poultry industry should not be indirectly handicapped by the operation of this Bill. It covers wheat meal for the poultry industry, and excludes all dog and game foods, etc.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the words "without further manufacture."
This Amendment and the further Amendment standing in my name are mere drafting Amendments. It seemed to us that the words at the end of the phrase which it is proposed to introduce were not very easy to understand. The object of the Minister was really that wheat meal delivered by the miller for consumption as animal and poultry food should be exempted, provided there was no further manufacture thereof. The sentence runs
wheat meal delivered by him for consumption without further manufacture.
That does not seem to make good English. If it ran
delivered by him for consumption as animal or poultry food without further manufacture,
we should be able to understand it. We put this Amendment down so that the farmer would not be confused by the idea of consumption without manufacture. The Minister will agree that it is better to put it at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle and I am sure, in the circumstances, he will be prepared to accept these two verbal Amendments. We are glad that he has brought forward this particular Amendment because, although we did wish to see the whole proviso left out, we felt that, if it were not left out, it was unfair that it should not cover the case where the miller sold food for consumption by poultry or animals. Therefore, we agree with the substance of the Amendment except on one point on which the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) has an Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: While the Amendment does seem an improvement, I am not quite certain that it is wise to accept it without further consideration. I will look into it between now and a further stage.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "manufacture," to insert the words "or mixing."
I move this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation or statement from the Minister as to what precisely is meant by "manufacture" in this connection. I appreciate that wheat meal, which is subsequently converted by manufacturing process into a dog biscuit, is definitely excluded from the provisions of this Amendment, but, in the case of meal which is sold to various patentees and to firms who manufacture all kinds of patent foods, who only mix other substances with the meal and do not submit the meal to any sort of manufacturing process in any sense or term, I want to know whether those processes are within or without the terms of this Amendment? For example, there is a firm doing a very large business which buys wheat and wheat meal and mixes it with dry yeast and with ground bone and sells it as a special patent pig food, guaranteeing that pigs fed thereon grow more rapidly and develop greater weight than pigs fed on ordinary food. There are at least half a dozen other patent animal foods on the market and there are chicken foods as well. You cannot describe them as manufactured, but they are admixtures of various materials. I put this Amendment down in order to extract from the Minister a definite statement as to whether such foods are or are not included.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The intention of the Amendment I have moved is to secure exemption for wheat meal delivered by a miller for consumption as such by animals and poultry, and to exclude from such exemption wheat meal delivered and manufactured in such things as dog biscuits and expensive animal and poultry foods for consumption. The Amendment to the Amendment, as I understand, would seek to limit the exemption to wheat meal which is not mixed before consumption by animals or poultry. I think it is unreasonable and also impracticable. I hope that what I have said is clear, and that in the circumstances it will meet the point which the hon. Member has raised.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman will find, on inquiry, that he
should put in some definition of "manufacture," if that is what his intention is. The Attorney-General will appreciate the difficulties that may arise when one is dealing with such things as manner of manufacture. He has a wide experience of having such difficulties discussed before him. The question of whether a mixture is a manufacture has often been debated at great length. In such circumstances the court may hold that manufacture may mean mixing in order to put a special food on the market. It would almost certainly cover mashes cooked before they are fed to animals as often happens in pig-feeding. If they were cooked before they were consumed by the animal they might come within the definition. Before this Bill leaves another place, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it would not be wise to put in some precise definition as to what manufacture means for the purpose of this Bill.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out the words "used only," and to insert instead thereof the words "consumed without further manufacture."

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out the words "exempting him," and to insert instead thereof the words "certifying that he is exempt."

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have no objection to this Amendment. We presume that it is only another case in this mad Bill of certifying someone as being something. Under this Bill I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman could certify a good many people.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) If in accordance with the bye-laws of the Wheat Commission it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Commission with respect to any bread that the bread has been exported and that all the flour from which the bread was made was flour in respect of which quota payments have been duly made, a repayment shall be made or allowed by the Commission to the exporter, and the amount of the repayment to be so made or allowed in respect of any such bread, as at the date on which it is so exported as aforesaid, shall be calculated at such a rate that the amount of the repayment in respect of every three hundred and seventy-six pounds of bread shall be equal to the quota payments payable in respect of two hundred and eighty pounds of flour delivered on that date.
This proposed new Sub-section is introduced in fulfilment of a promise that I made in Committee that I would give special consideration, before the Report stage, to the case of bread, amounting in value to £200,000 per annum, exported from Northern Ireland across the land frontier. We have made special investigations and have been in communication with the interests in Northern Ireland, who are agreed that the proposals which I make in this Amendment will meet their case. The House will remember the discussion which took place in Committee. This Amendment follows upon the undertaking that I then gave.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the first word "bread," to insert the words "or biscuits."
The Minister has agreed to give a rebate or repayment of the quota in the case of bread which is exported across the land frontier in Northern Ireland, but I gather that he refuses to give a similar rebate in respect of biscuits. For the life of me I cannot see either in logic or in reason any ground for differentiating between biscuits and bread in this regard. The value of the bread exported, which is only a question of exportation across the frontier between the Irish Free State and Ulster, amounts to £200,000, whereas the value of the exports of biscuits from this country to foreign countries amounts, on the Minister's own showing, on the average to £1,175,000, or more than five times as much as the value of the bread in question. It seems to me remarkable that the Minister should be wilding to reimburse the manufacturers of bread and not to reimburse the manufacturers of biscuits.
Something like four-fifths of our biscuits that are exported go to foreign
countries, and not merely to our Dominions and Colonies. The biscuit export trade is a very old-established one. For the last 50 or 60 years British-made biscuits have been obtainable and sold all over the world and are obtainable in practically every European country. They have a desperate fight to hold their own at the present time, particularly because the flour from which the biscuits are made by our principal competitors, namely, the French and the Germans, is subsidised. During the Committee stage the Minister urged that the Amendment which we then moved on the subject was rather too wide in its terms. Instead of specifically denominating biscuits we used the words, "wheat products," and he thought that was too wide as it included sausages, sticking paste and other similar articles. He hinted, without saying so specifically, that he might consider the question of including biscuits in the rebate, and I earnestly hope that he will see his way to make the concession, particularly as the question of employment is very much bound up with his decision.
I am informed that if the Bill goes through as it stands it will unquestionably mean the loss of a very considerable proportion of our export trade in biscuits, and will necessitate the discharge of at least 4,000 to 5,000 persons who are at present employed in the different biscuit factories. The biscuit trade is an extraordinarily localised one. There are at the present time only five or six big biscuit manufacturing firms in the whole country, although there are a number of smaller firms. Ninety per cent. of the biscuit manufacturing trade of the country is conducted in five or six places—Huntley and Palmer's at Reading, Peak Frean's in Bermondsey, Carr's at Carlisle, McVitie and Price in Edinburgh, and one or two other firms. If we hit seriously this industry, it will cause a very great dislocation of employment in those five or six places, it will be a very hard blow to the areas where biscuits are manufactured, and it will involve no inconsiderable hardship. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to include biscuits and to put them on exactly the same footing as bread.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We had a discussion on this problem when the Bill was in Committee. I think the Amendment was then moved by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and supported by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The organised biscuit trade of the country has not made any representation to me in favour of this exemption. I should like the House to know that I laid the quota scheme before the National Association of Biscuit Manufacturers last December, and asked for their observations. The reply which I received, dated 19th December, was to the following effect:
As biscuit manufacturers, the firms in my Association are vitally concerned in any proposals likely to affect the supply of English wheat and the price that they will be called upon to pay for English flour. So far as can be judged from your memorandum, although the application of the scheme would obviously tend to increase the price of English flour, it does not appear that the interests of biscuit manufacturers will be prejudicially affected to any serious extent.
That was followed up, on 20th January, by a communication in which the Association informed me that the modifications which I had introduced into the original scheme did not appear to affect their members prejudicially. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable that I should reject the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey has emphasised the fact that there is an export trade in biscuits, and he was apprehensive that damage might be done to that industry. The two quotations which I have made appear to show that those who are qualified to judge do not take the view that the industry is likely to be prejudiced. The average export of biscuits from the United Kingdom in each year from 1926 to 1930 was something like 9,550 tons and the average value £1,175,000, the average value per ton being £123. Assuming that these biscuits on the average contain 75 per cent. of flour, the cost to the biscuit maker of the flour in a ton of biscuits at the present time is somewhere between £6 and £7, and with this raw material he manufactures a product which has been exported in recent years at the price of £123 a ton. It is, therefore, obvious that the cost of the flour is comparatively insignificant contrasted with the wholesale
price of the biscuits. I have gone very carefully into this matter and in view of the information that I have placed before the House I think they will realise that there is no real necessity for the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a document which he has received from the biscuit manufacturers. I should like to know whether that organisation has been informed that bread exported is to be exempt from the payment of the quota duty, and if so have they expressed themselves since they learned of that Amendment? I would suggest that it is not always wise, as seems to be the case, for the right hon. Gentleman merely to wait until vested interests make a demand upon him before he will do this, that or the other. No vested interests have approached Members sitting on these benches, either from the biscuit manufacturers or others. We merely look at this question from the point of view of employment. While it may be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that a mere £1,150,000 worth of biscuits exported per annum is an insignificant proportion of our total export trade, it does find employment. Might I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that while .6 of the total value of the article represents flour, we have heard it said time and again in this House that one-half of one per cent. makes the difference between losing or obtaining an order abroad. If competition is so fine that .3, .5 or .6 will make the difference between securing an export order or losing it, then the right hon. Gentleman is toying with trade by setting on one side what he regards as the infinitesimal proportion of the price of flour in the biscuit. If it is reasonable to exclude from the operation of the Bill £200,000 worth of bread, why is it unreasonable to suggest that £1,200,000 worth of biscuits ought to be excluded?
7.30 p.m.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the 9,500 tons of biscuits annually exported are exported in tin boxes, and, therefore, if any damage is done to the biscuit trade the tin makers will be adversely affected, and they will not thank the right hon. Gentleman if he puts an embargo on this export trade. It is therefore hardly fair to dismiss this
biscuit trade as insignificant. The right hon. Gentleman and Members opposite are constantly declaring that the one means of solving the unemployment problem is to find work, but the right hon. Gentleman is going the right way to destroy some work of a very lucrative character. If the sum is so small that it really does not matter, why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment and thus avoid the possibility of endangering the biscuit trade. He is providing a subsidy for foreign countries, but, apparently, our own manufacturers are to have no consideration at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman should be a wee bit more patriotic, and assist our own producers more than he appears to be willing to do at the moment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is probably the case that the communications did not

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[7.34 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R, T, (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Duncan Graham.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crooke, J. Smedley


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crossley, A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Browne, Captain A, C.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Denman, Hon. R, D.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Burnett, John George
Denville, Alfred


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Despencer-Robertson, Major J, A. F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dickie, John P.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Carver, Major William H.
Doran, Edward


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Drewe, Cedric


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Clarry, Reginald George
Eady, George H,


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Clayton Dr. George C.
Eden, Robert Anthony


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blindell, James
Colville, John
Elmley, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Conant, R. J. E.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooke, Douglas
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooper, A. Duff
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cranborne, Viscount
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Craven-Ellis, William
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

pass between myself and the interests concerned since the case of bread was dealt with in the Committee stage. It is not a case of my waiting to be approached by any of the so-called vested interests concerned. On the contrary, I am in the closest touch with the representatives of the concerns connected with this problem and, as I have already said, they have had the whole scheme of the Bill before them and have had the fullest opportunity of going into it and discussing it with my advisers and they have said that they do not anticipate any damage to their trade. As I do not wish to extend this exemption further, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'or biscuits' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 246.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fielden, Edward BrockUhur"t
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Fox, Sir Gilford
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Magnay, Thomas
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. H n. Sir A. (C'thness)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gledhill, Gilbert
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Soper, Richard


Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Milne, Charles
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Grimston, R. V.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stones, James


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Storey, Samuel


Hacking, Ht. Hon. Douglas H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hales, Harold K.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Munro, Patrick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Templeton, William P.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
North, Captain Edward T.
Thompson, Luke


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nunn, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Terence James
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hepworth, Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Palmer, Francis
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Pearson, William G.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'prn,B1lsrn)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Weymouth, Viscount


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Johnston, J. w. (Clackmannan)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsden, E.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Withers, Sir John James


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. It.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Law, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wragg, Herbert


Leckie, J. A.
Ross, Ronald D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



Liddall, Walter S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Davies.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 30, leave out the words "the aggregate quantity," and insert instead thereof the words:
that part of the output of millers and importers.

In line 31, leave out from the word "delivered" to the word "and," in line 33.

In line 34, at the end, insert the words:
excluding wheat meal to be consumed, without further manufacture, as animal or poultry food."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 4.—(By-lairs of the Wheat Commission.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the words "to registered growers."
All the Amendments in my name to this Clause, with the exception of two, are drafting Amendments and for the purpose of making it clear that the right to deficiency payment on proof of the sale of wheat by registered growers may be claimed by a trustee or other person entitled to act on behalf of a registered grower and not necessarily by the registered grower himself. The Amendment
is to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps).

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not understand the need for this Amendment. I understood that in the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman accepted, which dealt with the case where the ownership of the wheat had passed to a trustee or committee or something of that kind, those persons were to be deemed to be registered growers, but as the Clause will now stand, with the Minister's Amendment incorporated, it will read rather curiously. It will enable payments to be made, but it will not say to whom. In the same way in the next Clause claims for deficiency payments may be made, but it will not say by whom they are to be made. I should have thought that these Amendments rather worsened the Clause from a drafting point of view.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will be found that this and subsequent Amendments are connected with a new paragraph (g) which it is proposed to insert in Clause 4, line 28, as follows:
(g) for securing that in the event of any wheat sown on land in the occupation of a registered grower becoming, before the sale of the wheat, vested in or under the control of any personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person, by reason of the registered grower having died or become subject to any legal disability or having entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as a registered grower in respect of that wheat, notwithstanding that he is not registered in accordance with the by-laws.
That new paragraph links up with this Amendment and will finally make the Clause read correctly. We have gone into the matter very carefully, and I believe that we are correct in moving the Amendment in this form.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with the case of the farmer who, as I said, was driven into a lunatic asylum by attempting to operate this Bill, but I do not think that the words "to registered growers," which he proposes to leave out, should be left out. It is very undesirable to have the power to enable payments in advance to he made to nobody in particular. As the Clause was originally worded the draftsman thought it was necessary for the
payee to appear. All that the right hon. Gentleman wants to say now is that that payee is to be either a registered grower or committee. He says that in the new paragraph (g) which he is to propose to insert in the Clause. This Amendment is rather a clumsy alteration which leaves out entirely the name of the payee. As it stands the payment might be made to the right hon. Gentleman or to anyone else.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and I will undertake to look into the matter before the Bill reaches another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 40, leave out the word "them," and insert instead thereof the words "registered growers."

In page 9, line 3, leave out the words "by registered growers," and insert instead thereof the words:
in respect of wheat sold by any registered grower.

In line 10, leave out the word "claimant's," and insert instead thereof the words "registered grower's."

In line 12, leave out the word "claimant," and insert instead thereof the words "registered grower."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after the word "whom," to insert the words" or to whose order."
As I understand it, it may happen that a farmer may not know to whom his wheat is despatched. It may go to the order of a merchant, who may subsequently cause it to be despatched to a person who is unknown to the farmer. The Amendment makes provision for such cases, and requires from a grower only such particulars m are within his knowledge. There is a. consequential Amendment to be moved later to line 24.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or," and to insert instead thereof the word "and."
I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at here. As we see it, the words ought to be "and to whose order." The name and address of the purchaser are stipulated, and it is the purchaser to whose order the goods are
despatched. The Minister has either to put in the same person twice As an option or else he intends to get the names of both people, the person to whose order it is despatched and the person to whom it is despatched. If he intends to get the names of both and inserts the words "and to whose order," he will get what he wants. He cannot get three people out of the farmer.

Sir J. GILMOUR: What one is concerned about, of course, is to get from the farmer the information of which he is cognisant. The farmer does not know who is the purchaser when he sells to a merchant on commission. That is the reason for this wording, and I think the wording covers what we require. But I will look again carefully into the matter. My advisers tell me that this really covers what the Wheat Commission and those who are working it will require.

Sir S. CRIPPS: With great submission, that is not really an explanation, because the Clause already states the name and address of the purchaser or his agents. The farmer must know either the principal or the agent; he cannot conceivably be in ignorance of both. The Minister does not add anyone else by inserting the words "or to whose order."

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I am advised, to require the name of the actual consignee to be disclosed in every case would involve a disturbance of existing commercial practice, and that would be unacceptable to the trade. For that reason I have moved the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the words "to registered growers."

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not know whether the Minister has read this Clause through very carefully with the Amendment included. The Clause is the only one that tells us about the machinery of the Bill, as to who are to receive these payments and so forth. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is really taking out the whole of the operative effect of the Clause.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will undertake to look into the matter further before the Bill reaches another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In. page 9, line 22, leave out the words "to a registered grower."

In line 23, leave out the words "by him."

In line 24, after the word "to," insert the words "or to the order of."

In line 25, at the end, insert the words:
after sale by the registered grower.

In line 28, leave out the words "required to be thereby certified," and insert instead thereof the words:
entitling claimants to the issue of such certificates."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
(g) for securing that in the event of any wheat sown on land in the occupation of a registered grower becoming, before the sale of the wheat, vested in or under the control of any personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person, by reason of the registered grower having died or become subject to any legal disability or having entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as a registered grower in respect of that wheat, notwithstanding that he is not registered in accordance with the by-laws.
8.0 p.m.
In the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) moved an Amendment to Clause 12, Sub-section (1), which covered the particular circumstances referred to in this Amendment, and I gave a promise then that before the Report stage I would endeavour to find a form of words which would cover all those points comprehensively. This Amendment is the result.

Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for inserting these words which, I think, meet the point made by my hon. and learned Friend and which do in fact fill up a gap in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 20 to 25.
These words which I propose to leave out are as follow:
Provided that, such by-laws may provide for receipts in respect of quota payments being issued, subject to the prescribed conditions, in advance of actual payment of the amounts due, but shall provide for the form of receipt showing in such cases that the receipt is so issued.
We believe that this paragraph is quite unnecessary, and we object to payments in advance being made in this way because it is conducive to all kinds of doubtful transactions between people who will have no direct interest in the marketing of the wheat. It is conducive to speculation and to the buying of wheat by people who would not in the ordinary way be bona, fide dealers in it. If the paragraph is left out, it will not be possible for the quota payments to be made to these people, and the following paragraph lays down the conditions under which the quota payments may be made by the Wheat Commission and provides all the necessary machinery.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I dealt with this point in a letter which I sent to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I understood that there was some apprehension that there might be gambling in some form or other in connection with this matter, and I do not think I can do better than quote part of the letter which I wrote to the hon. and learned Member on the subject:
I am advised that your apprehension of this kind of speculation seems to be based on a mistaken view that the receipts which are required, in order that an importer may obtain delivery of any parcel of flour from Customs charge, constitute a discharge of his liability to make to the Wheat Commission the quota payments falling due in respect of that parcel. This is not so. Nothing which may be done under Clause 5 (1) will affect the liability of an importer under Clause 3 to pay to the Wheat Commission the quota payments due upon any parcel of flour entered by him for home consumption or home use, calculated by reference to the rate of quota payments in force at the time of entry. Under Clause 5 (1) the Customs authorities will not release any parcel of flour for home consumption or home use except upon production and surrender of a receipt issued to the importer for an amount at least sufficient to cover the quota payments due upon the flour at the time of entry. This receipt may be obtained from the Wheat Commission, either against cash or, under the proviso to Clause 4 (2), in advance of payment. The Customs authorities will notify the Wheat Commission of the quantity of flour which is in fact entered for home consumption or home use, and it is upon this quan-
tity that the liability of the importer to make quota payments, due as at the time of entry, under Clause 3, will be assessed; and the importer will be liable to pay the amount so due from him subject to this proviso, that any sum paid by him for the receipt by means of which he obtained delivery of the flour from the Customs, will be taken into account in ascertaining the net amount of his liability to the Wheat Commission.
All that may sound very complicated, but it was only after the most careful research that I wrote this letter, and in short it may be said that these receipts are no more than the means by which their owners can obtain the release of flour from the Customs. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I think the Minister has satisfied us that some form of payment in advance is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions for securing payment of quota payments in respect of imported flour, and pre-entry of export flour.)

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment formally and by arrangement. We considered that the wording of the Clause was somewhat loose, and the Amendment is moved in order to give an opportunity for an explanation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): This Clause was subject to some discussion in the Committee stage, and I think that doubt was felt by some hon. Members as to its exact scope and purpose. This is purely a machinery Clause. It is necessary to secure that the various parcels of flour imported into this country shall have quota payments made in respect of them. Some of the flour which is imported is dutiable and some is not. For instance, that which comes from the Empire is not subject to duty. Flour that is dutiable will be caught by the ordinary machinery of the Customs automatically; that is to say, the hand of the Customs authority will be placed upon it pending the payment of the duty for which it is liable, and that will provide an opportunity for seeing that the quota payment referable to that parcel is made. In regard to a parcel which is not dutiable, the ordinary practice under the Customs Act would merely require the importer to fill up a
form, and, upon the parcel being passed by the Customs officers as not being liable to duty, it would, thereupon, be released immediately, and there would then be no security that the quota payment had been made. This Clause merely provides that whether or not the parcel of flour is dutiable, the ordinary machinery of the Customs Consolidation Act shall apply to it, and that it shall be, in the words of the Clause:
entered in like manner as goods liable to a duty of Customs are entered.
The result will be that there will be a means of securing that the quota payment referable to the parcel shall be made, because once the goods are required to be entered "in like manner as goods liable to a duty of customs" they will not then be released as duty-free goods would be released, upon a pass by the Customs officer. They will only be released subject to the production and surrender of a receipt in the prescribed form for the amount of the quota payments payable in respect of the flour. That describes the sole purpose of Subsection (1) of the Clause. The three provisos are reasonably plain. Proviso (a) is necessary to prevent quota payments being paid to the Customs officer, as they are payments which are liable to be made to the Wheat Commission and not to the Customs authorities and, notwithstanding the application of the Customs machinery, proviso (a) says that the payments are to be made to the Wheat Commission. Proviso (b) deals with parcels of flour which have been sold by the Customs authorities because duty has not been paid, or which have been sold under some other power. Proviso (c) is merely an exclusion of the provisions of the Customs Consolidation Act which are not proper to be applied to these parcels of flour. The remaining Sub-section deals with the repayment of the quota payments upon exportation or shipment of the flour. Unless my hon. Friend wants any guidance or assistance which I may be able to give him on Subsection (2), I hope that the observations which I have made will satisfy him as to the purpose of the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: It is Sub-section (2) which is worrying our minds. It provides that if the exporter or shipper
fails or neglects to make such entry or if the entry be false in any particular he shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds.
Those are the words of which we are afraid. We feel that the words ought to be "if he wilfully fails" or "if the entry is wilfully false in any material particular." As the Sub-section stands, if the return is false, whether accidentally or otherwise, the penalty will be enforceable and it is to be a penalty of £100. It does not say "a penalty not exceeding £100." If I were a magistrate, and a person were brought before me in a case in which a false entry had been made, whether he had made it wilfully or not, I could not but fine him £100 under the terms of this Sub-section.

Mr. ATTLEE: This is an extraordinary Sub-section, and I think it is the result of rashly taking precedents. Under this Sub-section you are making a man who neglects to take a sum of money due to him liable to a, penalty. The only possible reference can be to Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 under which he is entitled to get money on export. If he fails to take the money, being perhaps a patriotic supporter of the National Government, and not wanting to embarrass them in these hard times, you say that he shall pay a, penalty of £100. I think the precedent has reference to explosives, but this is an entirely different matter. Here you are setting up a new crime, subject to a fine of £100, because a person fails to claim a sum of money.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry I did not appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend's question related to Sub-section (2), and I am afraid that I wearied him with an attempted elucidation of the earlier Sub-section which did not interest him. If he had put down an Amendment to Sub-section (2), I should more easily have appreciated the point on which he thought I might help him. The first point he made was that the words "fails or neglects" are not preceded by the word "wilfully." As to that, all that I can say is that this Clause is intended to be part and parcel, for the purposes of this Bill, of the Customs Consolidation Act, the procedure of which is made referable, subject to certain exceptions, to these parcels of flour. Therefore, this Sub-section substitutes a more proper form of Clause for
Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act. That Section 139 follows the form of words which is used throughout the Customs Act.
It, is true that that has reference to explosives, as the hon. Member opposite said, but as we are substituting a Clause which is, so to speak, to be read into or as part of the Customs Consolidation Act, we must employ the same manner of drafting, the same phraseology, and throughout the Customs Consolidation Act the word "wilfully" does not appear before such words as "fails or neglects." If we were to put it into this Clause, it would immediately throw a doubt upon the proper interpretation of similar words in other sections of the Customs Consolidation Act, and my hon. and gallant Friend's suggested Amendment would have, I think, an effect which he does not intend, because it might be said that where the word "wilfully" does not appear in the Customs Consolidation Act, a man must be convicted, however innocent and inadvertent his act was.
That is not the proper way of interpreting the phrases in the Customs Consolidation Act. Where it says, "if a man fails or neglects" to make such entry, it is not intended that mere inadvertence is to be read as failure or neglect. It must be neglect, and neglect imports something wilful. You do not neglect to do a thing if, by some accident, such as illness, you have been prevented from doing it, nor do you fail, in my respectful opinion, to perform an act if by some accident you are prevented from doing it. If we were to put in the word "wilfully" in this place, we should be suggesting that in all the other places in the Customs Consolidation Act in which those words occur, whether it was wilful, or inadvertent, or accidental, the man must be convicted. I therefore think my hon. and gallant Friend would desire to leave the words as they are. The next point was that the words, "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds" would require a magistrate to impose a. penalty of £100 and no less.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the next Amendment on the Paper, which is one to make the amount a sum not exceeding a certain figure, is an Amendment which I propose to call.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I will say no more on that point at this moment. The hon. Member opposite had a third criticism, that this new Subsection provides a penalty in addition to the loss which a man will suffer by not getting the repayment to which he would be entitled if he were to make the entry. He will see that the Clause also provides that, if the entry be false in any particular, he shall be liable to a penalty of £100. I am sure he will agree that it would be very improper that, if a man snakes a false entry, possibly with the idea of getting a larger repayment than he is entitled to, he should merely suffer the loss of the repayment which he would have got if he had behaved honestly. He ought to be made to pay a penalty, in the view of the Government, and that is the reason why we have provided that he shall be liable to a penalty of £100 in addition to the loss of the repayment.

Mr. ATTLEE: But why should a person be penalised at all? The only point where the exporter comes in is if he has not made a claim in order to receive some money.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was: trying to explain that if the hon. Member will look at the Clause, he will see that it says:
If he fails or neglects to make such entry or if the entry be false in any particular he shall be liable to a penalty.

Mr. ATTLEE: I agree with the second part.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member agrees that he should be liable if he makes a false entry. Now the criticism is that we make the penalty applicable to failure or neglect to make an entry at all. If the hon. Member accepts what I have suggested, that it is for the court to reduce the penalty in a proper case to any figure less than £100 which the court thinks proper, I think there would be nothing wrong in saying that in a case where the failure or neglect has been deliberate, a larger penalty should be applicable. It would rest with the court to say what is the proper penalty, and, if the exporter has last his repayment, the court may say that he has suffered all the punishment that is proper, but there may be circumstances which show that there was some motive behind the failure or neglect to make the
entry, and I see no reason why the magistrate should not then say that, in addition to the loss of his repayment, he must pay a fine of a sum up to £100.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'of,' in page 12, line 34, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, to leave out the words "of one hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words:
not exceeding the sum to which such exporter or shipper of flour would be entitled to receive in repayment under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section three of this Act.
This is a continuance of the same point. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fully explained the matter. I can understand that where the law says that a person shall do a certain thing, and he fails to do it, he shall pay a certain penalty, but where is there an obligation upon a shipper or exporter to do anything in this Bill? There is no duty put upon the shipper or exporter of flour in this Bill at all. All that is done is that he is given a right, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3. That Sub-section merely gives a right to the exporter or shipper to get a sum of money back. I can understand the first part of this Sub-section, which is quite germane, but there is nothing in the second part that really relates to this Bill at all. It is simply taking something out of the Customs Consolidation Act and trying to apply it to a totally different set of circumstances. I confess that I thought after the little discussion, in which several learned Members joined on the Committee stage, that the Minister would put down an Amendment on the Report stage to delete the Sub-section, or at all events make it apply only to the second case of making a false entry, if indeed that were necessary. I imagined that this would be omitted, but, if you are going to say that where a person does not claim a sum of money that is due to him, he should be fined £100, it makes the punishment for the crime perfectly absurd. As we have got into the realm of "The Mikado," we want to make the punishment fit the crime.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am also very puzzled about this Sub-section. It
is necessary that we should appreciate the provision it is in lieu of. Under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, Section 139, the position was perfectly plain and simple. There was power under that Act in case of public emergency for the Commissioners of Customs to direct that certain pre-entries of exports or coastwise goods might be required, and therefore, there being a condition of public emergency, it was perfectly plain that, when they required that certain things should be done, any individual who failed to do those things was acting contrary to the public good in the course of the public emergency. That being so, it occurs to one that it was right that you should punish a man for not having made those declarations which that Section prescribed. The Act then went on to deal with certain other articles which were exported under the Explosives Act of 1875, which was again a case where it was for the public good that a declaration should be made. It became apparent under the earlier part of Clause 5 of the present Bill, which was intended to apply to Customs laws generally, that Section 139 could have no application to a wheat quota, and in these circumstances, apparently, it has been thought necessary to import some form of penalty following upon Section 139 of the 1876 Act, because that also prescribes that if a declaration is false there is to be a forfeiting of a sum of £100. That is right enough, but, as has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite, why it should be necessary to say that a man who is not obliged under the Bill as I follow it to claim this benefit at all should be liable to a penalty of £100 if he does not make a claim and does not want to make a claim, is one of those things which makes one wonder whether this Clause has yet received the amount of consideration which it ought to receive. I am not quite sure how far it is now in order to discuss the second point which arose upon this Clause, which was that under the original Act of 1876 there is provided a forfeiture of a sum of £100, and there are very elaborate provisions in the Customs Consolidation Act providing for the manner in which sums which are penalties or liable to be forfeited can be recoverable. It was pointed out that in this Clause in this Bill, instead of the word "forfeiture," the
word used is "penalty," and, whereas under this Clause the words are "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds," in every other case under the Bill in which it is sought to make provision for fines in respect of anything done which ought not to have been done, or vice versa, the provision is "not exceeding the sum" of so much. That was discussed upon the Committee stage of the Bill, and those of us who took part in that discussion thought that the matter was going to be reconsidered, because there is a perfectly well understood rule of construction which is applied in the courts to the effect that where the Legislature varies the language, presumably it intends to vary the meaning. That being so, it was thought that for greater caution, instead of using the language "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds," Clause 5 would have been better drafted so as to show the real intention of the Government in the matter if the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds" had been inserted. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will give consideration to this Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Clause has been given very full consideration, and I hope that I can satisfy him and the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Clause is in its proper form. May I first deal with the point with which my hon. and learned Friend dealt in his last observations? He suggests because Clause 14 of this Bill uses the words "a fine not exceeding" that, where it is intended that there shall be power to impose not less than a particular sum, we should use the words "not exceeding" so much instead of adopting the form in this Clause "shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds." He compares Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 with Clause 14, but the two Clauses are not really comparable. Clause 14 is part and parcel of this Bill, and the rule of construction, which is perfectly well known, does not apply to this particular Clause, because this Subsection which we are discussing is not part and parcel, so to speak, of the Wheat Bill; it is part and parcel of the Customs Consolidation Act, and has to be fitted into that Act.
If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the Customs Consolidation Act
and compare like with like, he will find that you do not get that form of expression "exceeding so much" in the Customs Consolidation Act, but over and over again you get in Section after Section the form of words which is used in Sub-section (2), namely, "shall be liable." The words are in fact "shall forfeit a, sum of one hundred pounds"; it does not say "a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds." With regard to the difference between the words "shall forfeit" and "shall be liable to a penalty," in recent years the latter form has been adopted. I venture to think it is more favourable to the person to be charged than the old form, "shall forfeit the sum." If we say that a man shall forfeit a sum of £100 it may be supposed that there is no discretion left to the court, but if we say he "shall be liable to a penalty of £100" that seems to imply that he has exposed himself to the risk of having to pay £100 if the court adjudge him liable to pay that amount. If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say so without offence, there is nothing in his criticism, for, if my opinion is right, when the Clause says he shall be liable to a penalty of £100 it gives the court complete freedom to say whether the penalty shall be £100 or a less sum suited to the nature of the offence.
The other point raised was as to what necessity there was at all for making any provision imposing a penalty. As the hon. Gentleman opposite quite rightly says, sub-section (3) of Clause 3 provides for the repayment to the exporter of the wheat quota payment, but he asks if a man does not want to claim repayment why should he be forced to make an entry If everyone made up his mind once and for all, at the right time, and kept to that state of mind, it might well be that a man who did not intend to claim repayment should not be required to make an entry; but supposing the man says at one time, "I do not mean to claim a repayment, and therefore I will not make an entry" and afterwards changes his mind? He may see Subsection (3) of Clause 3 and say, "If I can prove to the satisfaction of the Commission that quota payments have been duly made in respect of some flour which I re-exported last week I am entitled to repayment. I have changed my mind and I will go and prove it to their satis-
faction and claim repayment." That would put the Wheat Commission in a very great difficulty to ascertain precisely whether the wheat which has been re-exported is the same parcel of wheat in respect of which the wheat quota payment was made.
In order to make it possible for the Wheat Commission to know what are the parcels of wheat in respect of which wheat quota, payments have been made and repayment is demanded, it has been thought necessary to put in words requiring everybody to make an entry before shipment or before re-exportation. That is the reason why Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, is in no wise applicable, because that merely provides that in some cases entry shall be made before re-exportation. We have thought it necessary to require an entry in every case before re-exportation. If a man does not want to claim repayment he need not, but if he does wish to do so, even at a late stage, there will always be the materials available by which the Wheat Commission can make up their minds whether the parcel in respect of which repayment is asked is the same as that which bore the quota payment. I can assure the hon. Member behind me that the provisions of the Clause were carefully thought out, and they are designed to facilitate the provision of proof to the satisfaction of the Wheat Commission, which is an indispensable part before repayment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We are not quite satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because it seems that this provision will deal with what may be very small quantities of flour indeed, such as shipments for a ship's stores, only a few bags. He states that the reason for putting in this Sub-section is that the Wheat Commission may have the information as to whether the re-exportation has been made or not. May I point out that under Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 the Wheat Commission are not to make repayments unless it is proved to their satisfaction that the flour has been exported or shipped as stores; and Clause 4 is a special provision that they are to make by-laws dealing with the question of how that is to be proved. Under paragraph (j) they have to make
by-laws to secure that repayments in respect of flour exported or shipped as stores are made or allowed only upon satisfactory proof that the quota payments have been duly made and that the flour has been exported or shipped. All that is necessary is for the Wheat Commission to make a by-law that the document is to be produced to prove to their satisfaction that the repayment is to be allowed. If such a by-law is made, then the exporter, if he wants to reclaim the money, will have to get the document from the Customs. It will be his own risk. No one will suffer but himself if he does not succeed. In order to accomplish that for which provision is already adequately made we are now asked to insert in the Bill a provision under which it certainly looks as if a man who does not want to trouble the Customs authorities by reclaiming some paltry sum on a sack or a, few pounds of flour will lay himself open to a penalty which may be anything up to £100. I agree with tile right hon. and learned Gentleman that it need not be £100 and that the words would entitle the court to impose a lower penalty. If it is said further that this provision is to stop the man making a false entry, that, again, has already been provided for, because paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 14 states specifically that any person who, with intent to deceive,
knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission shall be liable to a fine of £100 or imprisonment.
The only point of this Sub-section is to enforce the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, which is already done under Clause 14 (1, c). Therefore it is a perfectly unnecessary Sub-section, which is going to cause a lot of trouble. It will put a, lot of people to the trouble of making entries and cause the Customs trouble in recording the entries and all in respect of negligible amounts. We suggest that however necessary and wise it may be to restrict liberty on every conceivable occasion this does seem to be one occasion on which the liberty of the exporter or shipper need not be unduly interfered with, and that he should not be exposed to a penalty of £100 if he does not claim money when he need not do so.

Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[8 44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Munro, Patrick


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Albery, Irving James
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. R1. Hon. Sir John
Nunn, William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Gledhill, Gilbert
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Glossop, C. W. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Atkinson, Cyril
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W,
Pearson, William G.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peat, Charles U.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Granville, Edgar
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Petherick, M


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bateman, A. L.
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Blist'n)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bernays, Robert
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsden, E


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hepworth, Joseph
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Robinson, John Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rosbotham, S. T.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Burghley, Lord
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Butt, sir Alfred
James, wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Carver, Major William H.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Scone, Lord


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Kimball, Lawrence
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Kirkpatriek, William M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clarry, Reginald George
Knight, Holford
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Colville, John-
Law, Richard K. (Hull. S. W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Conant, R. J. E.
Leckle, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cooke, Douglas
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lees-Jones, John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Craven-Ellis, William
Liddall, Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Crooke, J. Smedley
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liewellyn, Major John J.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Crossley, A. C.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Stones, James


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Denville, Alfred
McCorquodale, M. S.
Templeton, William P.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dickie, John P.
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thompson, Luke


Duckworth, George A. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eady, George H.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Eastwood, John Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Martin, Thomas B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Elmley, Viscount
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Milne, Charles
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Adrian C.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, William Shephard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 51.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Worthington, Dr. John V.



Wise, Alfred R.
Wragg, Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Womersley, Walter James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'vnoaks)
Lord Erskine and Sir Murdoch




Mackenzie Wood.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Gcvan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Briant, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Cordon




Macdonald.

CLAUSE 7.—(Adjustment of surpluses and deficiencies in Wheat Fund.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do so for the same reasons which were advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on a previous Amendment. I am afraid that under this Clause we shall see a certain amount of gambling by those who import flour or milled wheat. I think the importers would be content to use up their stocks waiting for the day when the wheat quota would have to be paid, and that is a very undesirable thing to do. On a former occasion, the Minister of Agriculture replied in these terms:
The very purpose of Clause 7 is to enable the Minister, in lieu of prescribing the amount of quota payments, to prescribe during that year quota payments of such amounts as he considers expedient for those purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1932; col. 540, Vol. 263.]
If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what that means, it may be that he will persuade us to consent to Clause 7 being retained in the Bill, but, so far, we have been unable to extract either common sense, logic or wisdom from any part of the Ministerial speech on that occasion. In view of the complexity of the Bill, and of the number of prescriptions and certifications that have to be made in reference to so many different units, we want to know exactly why this duplicate power is necessary. If the First Commissioner of Works can be clearer than the Minister of Agriculture was in Committee, we may consider the advisability of withdrawing this Amendment, but otherwise, fearing
the possibility of gambling that may ensue as the result of this Clause, we should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say before we decide what action we shall take.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should say that this Clause has two purposes, both of which secure common-sense adjustments—which, of course, are not necessarily strictly logical. The Minister in any one year has to make two sets of Orders. In one he will prescribe quota payments in order to collect a sufficient sum of money during the 12 months to supply the deficiency payments. Equally, he has to make other Orders in the same year, on the advice of the Wheat Commission, prescribing what the deficiency payment shall be, that is to say, what is to be the final figure for the difference between the average price received by all the farmers in the country in the open market for their wheat, and the standard price. It may be that at the end of the year those two sets of Orders will not produce an exact balance-sheet.
9.0 p.m.
A maximum sum of £8,000,000 has frequently been mentioned in this Debate. Certainly in the first year the sum is not likely to be £6,000,000, but it is quite likely that there will be, as between the, two calculations, a variation amounting to a small percentage of that £6,000,000, and, therefore, it is necessary to have an adjustment Clause, so that at the end of the year, if either the one or the other figure is the greater, there may be a carry-over for the purposes of the next year's working. If the Order prescribing the amount of quota payment on each
sack of flour is in excess of the amount required to pay the deficiency payments by, say, £100,000, that £100,000 will go over to the next year, and by that figure the amount of quota payments which will be collected in the next year will be lowered. On the other hand, if the deficiency payment exceeds the amount that has been collected in the previous year in quota payments by £100,000, it will have to be made up. That is the main purpose of the Clause. It has another purpose—a secondary purpose—which, on the face of the facts as we see them to-day, is not likely to be realised, but which has to be provided for in order to make the Act watertight. This second purpose is to enable the Minister in any year in which the average price of home-grown millable wheat ceases to be less than the standard price, to prescribe some small quota payment merely for the purpose of ensuring that the Wheat Commission shall be in possession of sufficient funds to meet the cost of keeping in existence the essential machinery of administration during that year. Supposing that there is, in the course of the next three years, such a rise in the sterling price of wheat that the world price of wheat exceeds 45s., and that, therefore, no quota payment becomes payable for the benefit of the farmer, it will be necessary, until the inquiry is held in three years' time, to keep some small amount in hand in order to defray the expenses of the Wheat Commission until the inquiry takes place, and, incidentally, to defray the expense of the inquiry itself. Obviously we cannot tell what is going to be the course of sterling prices in the next three years. If sterling retains its present value, and the world's crops of wheat are anything like what they are to-day, this is a remote contingency, but it is desirable to ensure that there will be available the sum necessary to defray the cost of the Wheat Commission and of the committee of inquiry in three years' time which will review the whole of this matter. That is the secondary purpose, beyond the adjustment purpose of the Clause. I think that the explanation I have given ought to be a sufficient one as to why this Clause is in the Bill.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We are deeply indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his endeavour to explain Clause 7—
[Interruption.] An hon. Member behind me says that he has explained it, but he has not done so to our satisfaction, because he stopped at the most interesting point. He told us what was contained in the first 12 lines of the Clause, and we had appreciated that, but the point was as to why the fresh power of prescription should be given in the last 10 lines of the Clause, because, as we see it, that is already covered in Clause 3. In Sub-section (4) of Clause 3, the Minister is given power to prescribe the amount of the payments under that Clause. If, at the beginning of the year, the Minister finds that no quota payment is required, he will not prescribe one, because he will find that his sum will work out at nothing, on the supposition which the right hon. Gentleman now makes that the sterling price has risen; so that that case is covered by Subsection (4) of Clause 3. In the second case, where the Minister, in the middle of a year, may come to the conclusion that circumstances have changed, and that, owing to the amount in hand, the quota payments need not continue, he operates under Sub-section (5) of Clause 3, which says:
If at any time during a cereal year"—
either at the beginning, or at the end, or at any other time—
the Minister considers that, for the purpose of securing that the average amount of the quota payments which will have accrued due during the cereal year"—
either before or after his Order—
shall more nearly represent the sum mentioned in subsection (1) of this section"—
that is what the fund has to pay out—
it is expedient so to do, he may, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by a subsequent Order supersede the Order theretofore in force under this section as from the date of the subsequent Order.
By that subsequent Order he can prescribe a nominal sum, or a large sum, or a small sum—any sum that he likes. He is given absolute power to cancel his original Order and put a fresh one in its place. What further powers does the Minister require to have? Why is it necessary to have this long and complicated Clause, which says "in lieu of prescribing the amount of quota payment under Clause 3"? It is not an additional but an alternative power. The object, apparently, is that, although the Minister has power to prescribe these
quota payments under Clause 3, this gives him another power to do it under Clause 7, in case he prefers to do it under Clause 7, and really there is nothing further in it, because every circumstance in the first part of Clause 7 is adequately covered already in the very general form in Clause 3, and I should have thought that what the Minister has told us so often, that it is undesirable to specialise, because it might be deemed to cut down the general power that is given under Clause 3, applied more particularly to this case than to any other. If the Minister wants to have wide power to accommodate the quota payments to the necessities of the fund,

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Denville, Alfred
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Albery, Irving James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Dickie, John P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Doran, Edward
Johnston. J. W. (Clackmannan)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Drewe, Cedric
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Atkinson, Cyril
Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Eastwood, John Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elmley, Viscount
Knight, Holford


Balniel, Lord
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leckie, J. A.


Bateman, A. L.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lees-Jones, John


Bernays, Robert
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Fermoy, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Liddall, Walter s.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gibson, Charles Granville
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gledhill, Gilbert
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burghley, Lord
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Magnay, Thomas


Burnett, John George
Gower, Sir Robert
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Butt, Sir Alfred
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Carver, Major William H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hales, Harold K.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hanbury, Cecil
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, diaries


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Harris, Sir Percy
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Conant, R. J. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Cooke, Douglas
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hepworth, Joseph
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Holdsworth, Herbert
Morrison, William Shephard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hops, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Munro, Patrick


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
O'Donovan, Dr. William James

he has it under Clause 3. If he puts in this Clause, it will be held that he only has the powers specifically set out in it, and it may be deemed that the general powers under Clause 3 are cut down by Clause 7, which lays down specific circumstances in which he can carry out precisely the same powers. Therefore, we suggest that it is redundant and is only adding a fresh complication to a Bill which is already sufficiently complicated without it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 51.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thompson, Luke


Palmer, Francis Noel
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pearson, William G.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Peat, Charles U.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Penny, Sir George
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Scone, Lord
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Petherick, M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsden, E.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wise, Alfred R.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Womersley, Walter James


Robinson, John Roland
Stones, James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, Samuel
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rosbotham, S. T.
Strauss, Edward A.
Wragg, Herbert


Ross, Ronald D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Templeton, William P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morg n (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Millers' Quota Fund.)

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, at the beginning, to insert the words:
The transactions of the Flour Millers' Corporation shall be published in a manner to be approved by the Minister and.
As the Bill stands the transactions of the Flour Millers' Corporation will be quite as secret as the proceedings of any private company. The Corporation is being given tremendous and unprecedented power, and, in conjunction with the Minister and the Wheat Commission, it really takes the place of Parliament in levying taxation. It is to consist of five persons, who are almost certain to represent the five great consolidated milling firms of Messrs. Rank, Messrs. Spillers, the London Association of Millers, and so on. Those bodies have a very close
understanding with each other. Personally, I have been buying flour in pretty large quantities in the last few years, and I know how the market is rigged. I know the sort of ring that exists in the milling world to-day. The public have an absolute right to know what a body of this sort really does and on what grounds, financial or otherwise, it arrives at its decisions, which will have a very important influence upon public welfare and upon the financial position of the individual. We ought to know what it does with its surplus, how it distributes its surplus and why it distributes it in a particular way. The minutes of this body really ought to be accessible to the public who are intimately concerned with its decisions. We are not suggesting in the Amendment that the minutes ought to be available, but that the transactions shall be published in a manner to be approved by the Minister.
I have had put into my hands to-day a memorandum, for publication, and I think that probably the best publicity I can give to it is to read it in this House. It is written by a gentleman who has knowledge of the position from the inside, knows every detail of it, and the sort of game which goes on in that organisation. I propose to read it as, in my judgment, it gives absolutely conclusive reasons why the transactions should be published as the Amendment asks. The document reads:
In order that you may appreciate the power the Bill proposes to give to the millers, let me take you on a time-journey into next year and see what will happen. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland there will be a tax on flour of 2s. or 3s. a sack, which will later on rise to 4s. a sack. This means, of course, another halfpenny a quartern loaf on the price of bread.
This tax on bread, the chief food of the poorest of the poor, is called a 'quota payment' and will be used to pay farmers the difference between the average market price, the price they receive collectively for their wheat, and the statutory price of 45s. a quarter which is guaranteed to them by the Wheat Act of 1932.
But most nations had quotas or high protection for wheat in 1932, and now that we have a small 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. quota and still others have followed us, the free market for surplus wheat is less than ever.
That will be obvious to everybody.
The wheat producing countries have made efforts to reduce acreage, but the United States Federal Farm Board has still had to dump its huge surpluses into this country, while Canada, Australia, Russia and the Argentine are still sellers. This surplus had to come here and it had to be sold 'at any old price.' if perchance, we have an Empire quota later on, the free market will be even less.
This is the millers' opportunity. They buy cheap foreign wheat and then force the home wheat growers to sell at low figures. The wheat growers do not mind a bit. They get their 45s. just the same. But the Minister has to put up the quota payment. It may go up to 6s. or even 8s. a quarter, and the bread eaters will have to pay. Also the millers get a little extra tariff preference out of the deal as well, as flour importers have to pay the levy and the 10 per cent. import duties in addition.
The Flour Millers' Corporation can buy wheat"—
it is specifically authorised to buy the surplus wheat in the country—
and also it has to distribute its profits among millers. Supposing that the Corporation asks millers to hold off native wheat
and elects to buy it at rock-bottom prices itself, where is the remedy under the Bill?
Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that question. As far as I can see, there is no remedy. My informant goes on to say:
There is no suggestion that the millers would do anything so foolish as to force down the price of wheat to something which is purely nominal, but they will have that power all the same if the Bill is left in its present state. Power is generally used even if not fully employed.
Practically 90 per cent. of the milling of wheat in this country is done by four or five large firms. I suppose I might even say that 95 per cent. of it is done by them. They will be able to control the market. They rig the market at the present time, and their powers of rigging the market will be greater than ever. The public have a right to have access to the transactions of this Corporation and to know why it arrives at certain decisions, what are its surpluses, how those surpluses have accrued and how they are distributed. I suggest that we have a right to that information and that the Minister should agree to accept the Amendment. It will still be in his own hands to determine the form in which the information is available to the public, but at any rate it will give us—and the farmers particularly—some safeguard against wholesale exploitation by any milling rings.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman and to the advertisement which he has felt bound to give to a correspondent. I am at a loss to understand what the correspondent's opinion has to do with this particular Amendment. It is, I think, clear that, where the transactions in connection with these problems are concerned with the Wheat Commission, the accounts should be available for audit and supervision in this House, but when you come to the problem of the purchase at the end of the season of the surplus stock on the farms, so long as they conform to the Order of the Minister, what the millers do with the wheat after they have purchased it is entirely their own affair. It is no concern of Parliament any more than any business transaction carried out by any other firm in the ordinary course of business. The Bill ensures that wherever any of these transactions have anything to do with the
Wheat Commission Parliament has a right to have the information submitted before the Auditor-General, but in the case which I have instanced, so long as they comply with the Order that is made, it is no concern of Parliament or of the Minister. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. PRICE: I have listened with interest to the reply of the Minister, but I think we have had no reason given why an Amendment like this should not be accepted. The Minister says that the Millers' Corporation, like any other business concern, will make their sales and accounts in accordance with the regulations, but in this case they are not like any other business concern. Let me draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are arranging a payment in which the Millers' Corporation will be directly interested, and, where public funds are going to subsidise the industry, the public have a right to know in every particular how the money is allocated, how the goods on which it is going to be paid are exchanged, and where they ultimately arrive. I should have thought the Government would be anxious to see that the public are satisfied that these payments and this quota system are managed in such a way that everyone has the right to know the conditions under which the payments are made and the transactions are dealt with. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter and give serious consideration to the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I should not have intervened in this discussion except for the statement of the Minister about this particular Corporation. He said that it was no concern of the House of Commons what they did with the surplus and that they were a private organisation which carried out its business like any other trading affair. This is not an ordinary trading organisation. It is an organisation created by an Act of Parliament and by the action of this House. Under the Schedule, it is laid down that the Corporation shall be a body corporate with a common seal, with power to hold land, and to consist of a chairman and four other persons appointed by the Minister. The Minister is a partner of this Corporation. He is the creator, founder, and inspirer of its existence.
He is its parent. He cannot divorce himself from responsibility. He may want to get out of all liability as to its future transactions. I understand he does not want to take on more liabilities, but this House is directly concerned. A little later on there is on the Order Paper an Amendment proposing that the transactions shall be laid before Parliament. If we are going to engage in this kind of State Socialism— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. This is denied by hon. Members opposite, but not over here. It is a kind of State trading, and, if we are going to have interests of this kind, surely they should be above-board? There should be an annual report giving full particulars and details of how they are carrying out their work. It should not be a hole-and-corner affair.
I do suggest that there should be not only a full report of its transactions made public—and not merely audited, for any ordinary private company audits its accounts in order to satisfy its shareholders—but that in the case of this organisation, created by the action of this House and composed largely of Members appointed by the Minister, Parliament is entitled to know exactly how it carries out its work. It should be a public report obtainable at the Vote Office, giving full particulars and figures and the report should be laid before Parliament so that if hon. Members desire to discuss it and ask questions of Ministers they may obtain full information and all the facts and figures. I attach a good deal of importance to this matter. I cannot see the Minister's objection. On the contrary, he should be proud of every publicity for his offspring, and we ought to know the full results of the work of this Corporation. All the interests concerned, the millers, the bakers, the wheat growers, and, above all, the general public, should be made conversant with how it carries out its work.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This distinguished child of the Minister was born with a silver spoon in its mouth and should have great publicity in the future as well as at present. I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman was serious in his address to the House on this Amendment, because, if anything is quite certain under the provisions of this Bill, it is that the Flour Millers' Corporation is unlike any
private body. It is set up specifically under the Bill, its powers are adumbrated in the Bill, the scheme for the election of its members is going to be passed by the Minister, the whole of the transactions have to be carried out in accordance with that scheme, and the scheme can be objected to by outside persons if they do not think it is a proper scheme before it is approved by the Minister. There is every device in the Schedule for seeing that this is a regulated statutory body and not a mere private company, as the Minister would suggest. Further than that, there are other powers that this body has outside those suggested by the Minister. Let me take two instances only.
Clause 1 (8) says:
The Flour Millers' Corporation may make arrangements for the purchase by any person on their behalf of wheat required by any such order as aforesaid to be bought by the corporation.…
They can nominate a single miller, if they like, or they can nominate a number of millers. They can nominate the actual purchasers in every case, if they wish to do so. They can deprive certain millers of the right or power to buy this wheat. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it may be a matter of value to a miller to be able to buy some of this wheat, or it may be a disadvantage, one or the other. The Flour Millers' Association can allocate that advantage or disadvantage to any miller as they wish. That is clearly a thing which should not be done in a hole or corner manner. This power is given to them in the Bill, and the public ought to know, and other millers ought to know, how the power is to be exercised.
Clause 4 (3) says:
Byelaws made under this section providing for the times at which and the manner in which sums due to the Wheat Commission by way of quota payments are to be ascertained and paid, may, with the consent of the Flour Millers' Corporation, make provision for the payment of such sums by that corporation on behalf of registered millers. …
In other words, if the Flour Millers' Corporation like to do it they can make this the collecting body for the whole of the quota payments. Is it not obvious that if such a thing is done there must be some publicity attached to their dealings? It is only the consent of the Flour
Millers' Corporation that is required. The Wheat Commission can make a bylaw saying, provided that the Flour Millers' Corporation consent, that they shall in future collect on behalf of the registered millers and pay over to the Wheat Commission the quota payments.
Surely, with a power of that sort in the hands of the Flour Millers' Corporation the right hon. Gentleman is not going to say that it is undesirable that publicity should be given to their doings, and that he has no more right to interfere with them than he has kith Spiller's now. It is a completely different proposition. We think that this is a really serious matter. It is not a matter to be brushed aside by a perfectly fallacious answer. If this large transaction is to be carried out through the Flour Millers' Corporation, if they consent, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that there shall be a condition that in those circumstances publicity shall be given. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is desirable and that he would not wish the public to have a suspicion that things are being done by the Flour Millers' Corporation which dare not see the light of day. For their own protection I should have thought that he would have liked to put these words in the Bill, in order that the Flour Millers' Corporation might be able to say: "Here are our transactions. Anyone can look at them. We are not afraid of the public seeing them." If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment one can only conclude that he is afraid of the public seeing the Flour Millers' Corporation's transactions.

Sir J. GILMOUR: In so far as the transactions have anything to do with quota payments or with the Wheat Commission, those will be expenses incurred in connection with the work of the Wheat Commission, and in so far as they deal with any of those problems they will come under the review of the Auditor-General and of this House. The only thing that remains is that at the end of the cereal year the burden is placed upon the Minister of directing the purchase of the surplus stacks. Those surplus stocks, so long as that condition is carried out, is a matter for the millers. So long as they make the purchases, that is all with which we are concerned. The method of how the purchase is made and the
method of how, when they have purchased the surplus stocks, they dispose of them is a matter between the individual millers in the concern. It is not a matter in which we have an interest, but it certainly is a matter of interest between the millers who deal with the problem, and for them alone. Their organisation is complete, and they are quite capable of looking after themselves. It is not a

Division No. 143.
AYES.
[9.42 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Briant, Frank
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lantbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grimston, R. V.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Conant, R. J. E.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, Douglas
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Atkinson, Cyril
Craven-Ellis, William
Hales, Harold K.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Crossley, A. C.
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Balniel, Lord
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Hanbury, Cecil


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hanley, Dennis A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Bateman, A. L.
Denville, Alfred
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dickie, John P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bernays, Robert
Doran, Edward
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Drewe, Cedric
Hepworth, Joseph


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hornby, Frank


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Borodale, Viscount
Eastwood, John Francis
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Burghley, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kimball, Lawrence


Burnett, John George
Fermoy, Lord
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Knight, Holford


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, Sir Joseph Qulnton


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Law, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Carver, Major William H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gibson, Charles Granville
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lees-Jones, John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

concern for us. There are no quota payments involved. It is, therefore, a matter between themselves, and as I have said, they are capable of looking after themselves. It is their affair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 254.

Liddall, Walter S.
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stones, James


Llewellin, Major John J.
Petherick, M
Storey, Samuel


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Strauss, Edward A.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partlck)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Templeton, William P.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsden, E.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thompson, Luke


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Robinson, John Roland
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Martin, Thomas B.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross, Ronald D.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Milne, Charles
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rutherford. Sir John Hugo
Weymouth, Viscount


Moreing, Adrian C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Morrison, William Shephard
Scone, Lord
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wise, Alfred R.


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Womersley, Walter James


North, Captain Edward T.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Nunn, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Worthington, Dr. John V.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wragg, Herbert


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Palmer, Francis Noel
Somervell, Donald Bradley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Patrick, Colin M.
Soper, Richard
Major George Davies and Mr.


Pearson, William G.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Blindell.


Peat, Charles U.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall be laid before Parliament.
This Amendment, although somewhat different in terms to the Amendment upon which the House has just voted, is not very different in character. It still revolves around the important question as to whether or not Parliament should have some means of access to an examination of the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation. It is unnecessary for me to apologise for referring to this matter again because when we put as strong a case as we could during the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman was so impressed that he promised to re-examine the matter before Report. Two or three quite substantial bodies are being created by this Bill. One is the Wheat Commission, and a second is the Flour Millers' Corporation. In the case of the Wheat Commission there is a provision whereby their accounts shall be subject to audit by the Auditor General and, therefore, subject to review by Parliament itself, but in the case of the Flour Millers' Corporation that pro-
vision is not present and, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that the House and the country has little or no interest in the transactions of the Flour Millers' Corporation. In his view they are somewhat private in character. I disagree very respectfully from the right hon. Gentleman in that matter and I shall try to show that the general public and this House has a very special and direct interest in the operations of this particular body.
The point has already been made that when this Measure becomes an Act it is highly essential that it shall carry with it the complete confidence not only of those who are directly associated with its operations but of the outside public as well, and if there should be any circumstance in connection with the working of this Bill which raises any suspicion, or gives rise to any chance of suspicion, it will be an eventuality which everyone will deplore. Vast transactions will be conducted by the Flour Millers' Corporation. The very size of these operations seems to me to be one reason at least for a review by Parliament of its operations, especially when we recall
the fact that this corporation is being created by Parliament. It is Parliament which calls it into being and gives it its authority and, therefore, it is essential that its operations should come under the review of Parliament. I am not convinced that the Minister is strictly justified in laying down the proposition that we have no concern with the operations of this Flour Millers' Corporation. I would direct attention to Clause 8, where are these words:
The Flour Millers' Corporation shall have power to borrow such sums as may be required by them for the purchase of any stocks of wheat. … .
It may very well be that upon occasion the borrowing operations of the corporation may be on a very substantial scale, and that their coming on to the money market may have an extremely important result, advantageous or disadvantageous, as the case may be. Surely, the Minister, therefore, is not entitled to argue that the operations of the corporation are of no concern to the general public. On a previous occasion I put to the right hon. Gentleman an aspect of this matter with which I aim very closely acquainted at the moment, since I happen to have the honour of being chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. In the ordinary course of events the operations of the Wheat Commission will come before the Public Accounts Committee, which has been appointed by this House to examine the financial transactions of various Departments or corporations set up by Parliament. It may very well be that the witness who appears before the Public Accounts Committee on behalf of the Wheat Commission will be asked questions as to what reason actuated the Wheat Commission in undertaking certain transactions. It may very well happen that such a witness may have to admit that he has acted very largely on the authority of the Flour Millers' Corporation.
If the House will refer to the paragraph which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) read a few minutes ago, they will find that the Wheat Commission is almost subject to the will of the Flour Millers' Corporation in certain respects. Clearly, then, the corporation ought to be answerable to some Committee of this House. This is a highly important constitutional
point. I say with all earnestness that it really is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that the operations of this corporation are of no concern to this House. They are of vital concern, and unless the committee set up by this House to examine the financial affairs has the power to cross-examine a witness who speaks on behalf of the corporation directly, then this House cannot keep in review the work of the Wheat Commission which has to report to this House.
10.0 p.m.
We ought to be assured that there are adequate reasons for reserving the whole of the operations of this corporation from the purview of the House of Commons. Personally I do not know very much about agriculture, but like other people I know a good number of members of the farming community. They are people who live a somewhat circumscribed life in most cases, and on account of that are a little apt to be suspicious of the operations of vast concerns such as this, and they have a right to be assured to the utmost that the operations of this corporation are above suspicion. There are to be five people appointed by the Minister, and they are not called upon to report to any man. They are not like directors of a company, for there are no shareholders. They just determine for themselves precisely what they shall do and how they shall do it. That really is not good enough when it is a question of the control of what might very well be in a given year a million or more of money. The Minister has treated us very frankly up to now, and we are entitled to a full and complete justification for the removal of the operations of this corporation from the purview of the House.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I thought my last speech put the case as clearly as it was possible to put it. One thing I would say at the outset, and that is that the Wheat Commission will never be under this corporation. There seems to be some sort of idea in the minds of hon. Members that the Wheat Commission will be subservient at one point or another to the Flour Millers' Corporation. The corporation can be used for certain purposes, and in so far as it is used for dealing with any problem connected with quota payments or any trans-
actions in the ordinary way of carrying out the scheme under the Wheat Commission, all those transactions will come under review and will eventually be laid before this House. The sole transaction that will not so be dealt with is the transaction which takes place at the end of the cereal year. I am very far from desiring to deny the right of this House to a proper review of things which are material to it. In this case the sole concern of the Minister, whoever he may be, will be to find that his order for purchase is complied with. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that after that purchase is made there is going to be some kind of transaction which is material, which is going to be hidden and which concerns us. I have tried to show what is the actual position. I quite understand that there should be anxiety on this matter and I am quite willing to discuss it, but I have tried to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are here concerned about a thing which really does not matter, as far as Parliament is concerned, as far as the question of price is concerned, or as far as the consumer is concerned.
What in fact happens? These people are the representatives of constituents outside in the business. They are, under this legislation, obliged to purchase. After they have purchased and the stocks have been delivered, then, as long as we have clear evidence that that has been done, the question of how they dispose of what they have purchased is a matter for themselves and their constituents and not for us. It does not affect the quota payments. It does not affect the expenses or transactions of the Wheat Commission and, with every desire to see that there are what I would call, frankly, necessary provisions in this matter, I think it is then a question which concerns nobody else except the corporation itself and its constituents. There are the registered millers throughout the country who are in fact conversant with what is going on, whose interests, no doubt, are affected, but whose interests in this respect have nothing to do with quota payments, but only with their own affairs. Any burden which may fall upon them is a matter solely for them and, in the circumstances, it is unnecessary to burden them by
adding further provisions to deal with a question which actually has nothing to do with the public authorities.

Mr. ATTLEE: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he has spoken, but I do not think that he quite grasps what he is doing in this Bill. He is engaged in a very novel experiment. He is setting up a great corporation which is going to run, to a considerable extent, the business of milling and it is quite clear that, once this thing is started, it is going to be, practically, in the position of a syndicate. There is a curious tendency on the part of the Government in favour of Syndicalism rather than Socialism. They do not appear to like very much control by this House, but they like setting up corporations. Very much the same thing was done in the case of the Electricity Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that the House is not concerned with this, but it is very much concerned. We are setting up a very powerful business which is going to make profits and is going to be controlled in syndicalist fashion by the millers.
We are always told that it is going to be controlled by absolutely trustworthy people. I have no occasion to speak against the millers. I know millers myself and I have no doubt that the millers are admirable people, but, on the other hand, we must remember that in the milling world there are some very big businesses and some very small ones, and it is clear that this corporation is going to be run by a few of the very big firms. They will "boss" the whole show, and I think it essential that some watch should be kept by this House upon their proceedings. I do not suggest that the corporation's affairs should be meticulously controlled by the Treasury or subject to questions put in this House, but that is quite different from saying that they are to be set free to run "on their own," free from any control as to their general lines of policy. This is a very large sum of money which is to be controlled, and I am rather suspicious of this power of purchasing. The duty of purchasing stocks is a very curious provision. I think there is every possibility of the market being rigged, and I frankly state that in our view the House would be ill-advised if it left this new Behemoth which is being created by the
right hon. Gentleman to escape altogether from its control. We shall certainly press this Amendment.

Mr. D. MASON: A very good case in favour of the Amendment has been made out by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). The gravamen of the charge which he made was that this corporation would be able to borrow and the Minister entirely ignored that consideration in his reply. This House is very jealous of its own privileges and prerogatives, and it should watch carefully what powers it delegates either to the Wheat Commission or the Flour Millers' Corporation. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly pointed out in his very able speech, the corporation, under Subsection (3), will have power to borrow. That is a very important power and it might be used at a very awkward moment for British credit. The Speakers of the House of Commons have always been very jealous of the position of the House of Commons in regard to these matters. Time and time again in British history Speakers have defended the rights of the House in this respect. I can hardly ask you, Mr. Speaker, to intervene in the Debate, but it is the case that this is a question affecting the rights of the House of Commons. An occasion might arise when this corporation would issue a loan which would interfere with the operations of the Treasury or of His Majesty's Government, and it is right and proper that its transactions should be subject to and should be laid before Parliament.
That is a proposition which ought to appeal to many hon. Members who do not agree with my views on fiscal affairs. They might do me the honour of showing me some sympathy when I raise a question concerning the rights of the House. This is a matter which does not apply to Free Traders or Tariff Reformers but affects the House of Commons as a whole. I support the Amendment and I ask that the Government should reconsider this very modest suggestion that proposals of this corporation to borrow or to issue loans should be laid before Parliament before being issued to the general public. It is an immense power to delegate to anybody, either to the Wheat Commission or the Flour Millers' Corporation, that this House, the guardian of British credit, should hand over to anybody the right to issue loans without being able
to say whether it is advisable or not. Under the Bill the corporation may enter into financial transactions on an immense scale which may affect the national credit of Great Britain and the British Government, and therefore I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this very modest proposal.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I wish to support the Amendment and to say that we are very disappointed with the Minister's attitude to the later Amendments that we have put from this side. The more we see and hear of this Bill, the less we like it, and, while we are disappointed with the Minister's excess of caution, we feel that he knows what he is doing well enough, and that he knows it is better to remain silent than to try to clear up this point, which must cause apprehension in the mind of everyone who has given the matter his attention. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment rightly called attention to the fact that the Flour Millers' Corporation will be merchants of wheat on a very large scale indeed. In Clause 3 there is provision for the corporation to buy no less than 12½ per cent. of the national output of wheat in a given year. When we try to assess the value of that proportion of the national output, we find that it may be a figure of no less than £1,750,000.
This corporation is not a body to carry on the business of flour milling. It is to be given very extensive powers, and, strange to say, the number of persons to be appointed on the corporation coincides exactly with the number of people who are connected with big milling firms, as we have heard to-night from the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). There are to be four representatives of millers on this corporation, and we are told that 90 per cent. of the milling operations of this country is done by four large firms. Those people will not only be given the right to control their own business as millers of wheat, but they will be allowed to buy a large volume of millable wheat which, under the provisions of the Bill, never need be milled. They will be allowed to go to the market and, finding 12½ per cent. of the year's crop unsold, they will be able to borrow money, from some public bank, it may be —we do not yet know how it is to be borrowed—sufficient to buy this wheat, but, having bought it, they are under no
obligation to mill it. They can then go to the poultry breeders or stock raisers and say, "We have wheat on our hands which we can sell to you," and there is nothing in the Bill which states the price at which it may be sold.
They can make a very large profit. They can sell this millable wheat for purposes other than milling to private individuals, and in this Clause, in Sub-section (4), it is provided that:
any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned in any cereal year by the sale or disposal of any such stocks as aforesaid shall be distributed to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for that year bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year.
These four large milling firms, represented directly on the corporation, will be allowed to search all available sources of wheat supply in this country, buy up to the extent of 12½ per cent. and an annual figure of nearly £2,000,000, and sell it, without any limitation of price or profit, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them enriching themselves from services entirely unconnected with the business of milling or growing wheat. These people are to be constituted into a body of wheat merchants with limitless

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Briant, Frank
Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Aitred


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut. Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Borodale, Viscount


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Broadbent, Colonel John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,c.)
Brown,Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bernays, Robert
Browne, Captain A. C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Atkinson, Cyril
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burghley, Lord


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Burnett, John George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Butt, Sir Aifred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Blinded, James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

opportunities for making profits, which they will divide in their own way without making a return to anybody. We are demanding that these people should have their accounts put before Parliament. Are we to have the risk of a national scandal over the business? The beet-sugar subsidy is becoming a scandal even with all the publicity which is afforded to it, and people are becoming seriously concerned with the way in which the business has been done. Here is a thing to be carried on in the dark, with profit for a few individuals, with secrecy, and with reticence from beginning to end. I believe that it will be in the right hon. Gentleman's interest to accept this Amendment, for he will be the person to be held responsible if any scandal arises out of an unwillingness to reveal these transactions. It will be brought back to him, and for his own personal honour, for the honour of his party, and for the honour of Parliament, he should accept this simple request which will cost nothing. It is a straightforward, simple Parliamentary request to which he ought very readily to accede.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 256.

Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hornby, Frank
Remer, John R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cassels, James Dale
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Robinson, John Roland


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rothschild, James A. de


Chotzner, Alfred James
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Colville, John
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kimball, Lawrence
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cooke, Douglas
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craven-Ellis, William
Law, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Scone, Lord


Croom-Johnson, R. P,
Leckie, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Liddall, Walter S.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major John J
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Denman, Hon. R. D,
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Denville, Alfred
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dickie, John P.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Drewe, Cedric
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Duckworth, George A. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duggan, Hubert John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Magnay, Thomas
Stones, James


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Storey, Samuel


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut,-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Templeton, William P.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Luke


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitcheson, G. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molson, A, Hugh Elsdale
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Train, John


Gibson, Charles Granville
Morrison, William Shephard
Turton, Robert Hugh


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
North, Captain Edward T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nunn, William
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Weymouth, Viscount


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peat, Charles U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Petherick, M,
wise, Alfred R.


Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Womersley, Walter James


Hanley, Dermis A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wragg, Herbert


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)



Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.
Sir George Penny and Commander


Hepworth, Joseph
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Southby.


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, at the beginning, to insert the words:
In computing for the purposes of this sub-section the output of a miller and the aggregate output of all millers there shall
be excluded wheat-meal delivered by the miller or millers for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food, and.
This is a purely consequential Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture appreciates that this is really more than a consequential Amendment. The miller who purchases this British wheat under the order, if this provision is inserted, is not going to be the person who either pays the loss or derives the benefit, because the bulk of the British wheat will be presumably used for the purpose of making wheatmeal, and it is just that very wheat which apparently is now going to be excluded from the calculation. The meal which comes from the wheat bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation is to be excluded in calculating the output of the millers under this Clause. I should have thought that that could not possibly have been the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and surely he does not intend the loss to be borne by people other than those who are buying the wheat. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman was wise in the other Clause to introduce this provision by which wheat-meal is left out of the calculation in arriving at the quota payment on the flour, but this proposal is a different thing. This is really the distribution of profit or loss on purchases of English wheat by the Flour Millers' Corporation and that is a completely different thing from the wheat distribution payment which was the collocation in which those words were used before. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the output of the miller is presumably the output defined under Clause 18. What is now proposed means flour produced by mixing, and we have not yet discovered what that means or how to do it. However that may be, does the right hon. Gentleman really intend that this wheat-meal, produced from the very wheat bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation, is not to be counted in calculating the amount which the individual miller is to get out of the aggregate loss or aggregate profit? That contention seems to me to be wholly illogical.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 27, leave out the words "exempting him," and insert instead thereof the words:
certifying that he is exempt."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Power of Wheat Commission to obtain information.)

Amendments made: In page 16, line 38, leave out the words "or flour," and insert instead thereof the words "flour or wheat offals."

In line 43, leave out the words "or flour," and insert instead thereof the words "flour or wheat offals."

In page 17, line 7, leave out the words "or flour," and insert instead thereof the words "flour or wheat offals."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out the words "all reasonable times," and to insert instead thereof the words:
any time which has been agreed upon with a miller or an importer of flour or a person carrying on business as a dealer in wheat or flour.
I think the House should realise that in this Clause the Government are bringing in what is almost a new precedent. A corporation is being set up in this country which will have the power to order its agents to enter into the premises of millers or dealers in flour without any warrant whatsoever, and search those premises for certain substances mentioned in the Bill. As the Attorney-General knows, the power of entry upon land has always been very circumscribed under English law, and is only exercised under certain conditions. I see that the late Mr. William Fielden Craies, the lecturer on criminal law at King's College and an authority on the subject, stated the following opinion:
Entry upon land cannot as a rule be justified except under judicial warrant. The only common law warrant of this kind is a search warrant which may be granted for the purpose of searching for stolen goods. Special powers for issuing search warrants are given by the Army, Merchant Shipping, Customs, Pawnbrokers and Stamp Acts, and for the discovery of explosives or appliances for coining and forgery; also under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which allows the issue of search warrants when it is suspected that a female is unlawfully detained for immoral purposes. The Official Secrets Acts, 1911 to 1920, are remarkable in that they dispense with the necessity of the intervention of a Justice of the Peace, in the case of a search for official documents, and enable the constable to make such a search on the order of a Superintendent of Police if it appears that immediate action is necessary.
No one says that immediate action is necessary in a case of this sort. In all
these cases the person who is allowed to intrude on anyone's premises with a warrant is a police officer. Under this Bill a corporation of business people, called the Wheat Commission, has the right to appoint persons to go on to private premises. It is monstrous that private persons, not police officers, without any warrant from justices or anything of the sort, can go to the premises of a farmer, miller, or corn dealer, and ransack his place for millable wheat. We, being a small body, are unable to resist what I consider to be a great infringement of English liberty, but I am not at all certain whether in another place this provision may not be dealt with by those who are learned in the law instead of those who in this House are merely learning the law. If you are going to do that, it should be done, not by order of this corporation, but by agreement between the corporation and the individuals with whom they are dealing. That will not be a difficult or elaborate operation. As far as I can visualise it, it might mean two or three letters—four at the most. The corporation would write to a farmer and say: "We propose on Wednesday next at three o'clock in the afternoon to inspect your place for millable wheat." The farmer may be at the market or may be engaged in a difficult farming operation, in which cases he will write to say: "Three o'clock on Wednesday is inconvenient. I suggest five o'clock on Friday." The Wheat Commission will say: "Friday will suit us, and we will come then." By that means the inspection will be done in a reasonable way instead of this way, which is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
The Minister may say, "That will be all right in 99 per cent. of the cases. Farmers and millers and corn dealers are reasonable people, and I am willing to give my own view that that is the procedure that will be adopted." But we want that in the Bill, because the ipse dixit of the Minister is not a legal thing. We cannot say, "The Minister of Agriculture said so and so in the House of Commons." In the remaining 1 per cent. of cases, the farmer may wish to avoid inspection. I am dealing with the 99 per cent. If it is wished to safeguard yourselves in respect of the 1 per cent., it is up to the Minister of Agriculture to add a few words in the Bill, which he can easily do, and say that if a reason-
able agreement had not been arrived at within a reasonable time the Wheat Commission should be able to go to a magistrate for a search warrant. I am not suggesting such words, because I disbelieve in the idea of people searching and going on to premises without any legal sanction.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is most refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) standing up for an absence of any restrictions upon anybody's liberty, and it is equally refreshing and agreeable to us to hear him relying upon another place for correcting any mistakes which this House may make. But I respectfully suggest to him that he has not provided in his Amendment for the circumstances in which the miller would not be prepared to make any agreement with the representatives. He has provided for a visit at a time which should be agreed upon by the miller or importer of flour, but he has not provided for what would happen if the miller or importer of flour said, "I will make no agreement, and this representative shall not come at any time, convenient or inconvenient, reasonable or unreasonable." That shows the impossibility of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member, unless he goes as far as to suggest that if a miller does not want a visit nobody shall be allowed to make a visit. That is not a view which can be taken by the Government, having regard to the necessity for seeing that the provisions of the Bill are complied with.
There is no desire on the part of the Government to infringe in any way the private liberties of a houseowner, and there is nothing in the Bill to make it possible for a man to insist upon invading private premises for purposes which are not required by his duties under the law. But the provision which the hon. Member has sought to amend merely allows him to visit at reasonable times. If he goes at an unreasonable time, the ordinary judgment of the courts may be trusted not to impose any penalty upon the miller or importer of flour who refuses permission to inspect his premises at unreasonable hours. I venture to think that the provision "reasonable times" is a better and more complete
one than the terms proposed by the hon. Member. It is further to be observed that the proposal that notice shall be given and agreement shall be arrived at may, in a particular case where it is most advisable to make a visit, defeat the whole object of the Bill. If the hon. Member suggests that a letter should be written, stating that "I propose to come on Wednesday afternoon at three o'clock," very likely the miller may say, "I am much obliged for your intimation to come on Wednesday at three o'clock," but he may not say in his letter, "I will make provision so that your visit will not be successful in finding out what I desire not to be known." The Amendment of the hon. Member would make the Clause worthless for the purposes for which it is intended.

Mr. COCKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that in paragraph (b) notice must be given in writing? On the Committee stage the Minister of Agriculture told us that if the farmer said he was engaged at a certain time that would be accepted as long as it was not in order to evade the whole thing.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 17, line 16, leave out the words "or flour," and insert instead thereof the words "flour or wheat offals."

In page 18, line 7, leave out Sub-section (5).—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Regulations to be made by Minister.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, have you not left out the Amendment standing in my name, in page 17, line 16, after the word "premises," to insert the words:
used for the purpose of the business of the said miller or importer of flour or person carry on business as a dealer in wheat or flour.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought it dealt with the same subject as the hon. Member's previous Amendment.

Mr. COCKS: No. With the utmost respect, the Amendment includes not private premises but only business premises.

Mr. SPEAKER: It has been passed now, and I am afraid we cannot go back.

Mr. COCKS: It was not called.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a) in which the Minister may, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, make regulations for giving effect to the provisions of the Act and such regulations may in particular make provision for prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be millable wheat. On the Committee stage we attempted to put into this paragraph (a) certain words which, in our opinion, might have made it of some value. We attempted to designate certain features by which the Minister should lay down a prescription for the definition of the term "millable wheat" because the term "millable wheat" forms, of course, the whole basis of this Bill, and it is fundamental to its proper understanding that the House should appreciate what is meant by that phrase. So far the Minister has successfully managed to evade giving any description of millable wheat whatsoever, So desperate, indeed, did some of his own supporters become during the Committee stage that I think they moved to leave out this paragraph as being of no value unless it was going to be properly defined. We have more or less given up the attempt to try to draw anything from the Minister which may give information to the agricultural community, and therefore we have come to the conclusion that this paragraph is w holly useless, because the Minister is wholly incapable of giving such a definition. That has been conclusively shown by his failure even to attempt to do it in the course of the Bill's passage through the House.
It is very vital in order to weigh the value of this Bill to the farming community, in order to weigh its cost to the consumer, and in order to evaluate what it is going to do for the country as regards agriculture, to know, in the first instance, what is meant by "mill-able wheat." It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech that about 85 per cent. of the wheat grown in this country would be millable wheat. That, I presume, is 85 per cent. after deducting 7½ per cent. of seed wheat and wastage and tail corn. Therefore, you would probably reduce it
to a figure something like 75 per cent. Are we to take it that the definition that is going to be made is to relate to the 75 per cent. of wheat grown by the farmer, or are we to take it that it is going to be left so vague that all the wheat grown by a farmer will substantially qualify as millable wheat? If not, how is the farmer now to know and how are the public now to know, when the Bill is before them for consideration, what sort of thing will disqualify wheat from becoming millable? Is it merely the damaged grain which comes out of the thresher as split, cracked and broken? Is it grain affected with certain well-known diseases, or is it grain of certain well-known qualities?
What is it that the Minister has in mind? Even if he is unable now to give us any prescription, is he not able to give some indication. He has had a long time in which to study the problem during Easter. Perhaps that study has brought him a little closer to a realisation either of the possibility or the futility of trying to define "millable wheat." If he has tried and if it has brought him closer to the possibility of defining it, then, no doubt, he will tell us either to-night or to-morrow what "millable wheat" means. If, on the other hand, it has brought him to a realisation of the futility of defining it, then, of course, he will accept our Amendment and will eliminate this Sub-section, because it is quite idle for him to have a Sub-section in the Bill which says that he may prescribe the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed millable wheat, if he knows quite well that he never can prescribe such a standard. We think that it is only fair and right that everyone who is going to consider this matter should know what is meant by millable wheat.
The Bill will have to be considered in another place and it is certain that one of the first things that they will want to know is what is "millable wheat." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that sonic of the eminent lawyers in the other House will be certain to want to know what definition he has in mind, because no lawyer, eminent or otherwise, can read through a Bill of this sort and not desire to know what the definition is. The first thing that the lawyer would do would be to look at the definition section. He would say: "Here is a phrase unknown to
the law—'millable wheat.' Let me look at the definition section of the Bill and see what it means." He would not get any comfort from that. Then he would turn to this Sub-section, and he would say: "How is the Minister going to prescribe it? What does it mean? Is it a possibility at all?" He would be met, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman's extremely genial smile, but nothing more. Therefore, we feel that there is a very good case for omitting this Sub-section unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us to-morrow that there really is some method of making a definition which will mean something and which will be of value to the milling and the agricultural community.

It being Eleven of the Clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further con-sidered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS PROLONGATION (UNEMPLOYED PERSONS) [MONEY],

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to provide that for the purpose of determining the rights of any person to transitional payments under the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (as amended by subsequent enactments), shall he read as if for any reference therein to a period of forty-eight months after the commencement of that Act there were substituted a reference to a period expiring at the time when the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, ceases to have effect, so, however, that no transitional payment shall be made by virtue of the foregoing provision in respect of any day after the expiration of the said period as so extended;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (a) of this Resolution in the sums payable into the Unemployment Fund under Article 8 of the said Order in respect of the cost of transitional payments and administrative expenses attributable to such payments, and to pro- vide that the said Article shall have effect accordingly."

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Henry Betterton, Major Elliot and Mr. R. S. Hudson.

Orders of the Day — TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS PROLONGATION (UNEMPLOYED PERSONS) BILL,

"to extend until the expiration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, the period in respect of which transitional payments may be in certain cases under the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.